Íæż½ã½ã

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of UNCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant’s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

ReceivabilityThe placement of a staff member on administrative leave is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. It is an administrative decision for the purposes of art. 8.1 (c) of the Statute and within the well settled meaning of an administrative action as laid down in Andronov. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative decision unless it has been first referred to the Management Evaluation Unit pursuant to art.11.2 of the Staff Rules. In the absence of management evaluation of the decision to place the Applicant on administrative leave...

The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent’s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant’s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant’s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...