UNDT/2020/138, Wenz
The Applicant’s professional counsel, by his own admission, was well aware that the Applicant would not be able to meet the filing deadline as he encountered difficulties in getting instructions from her. Contrary to his assertion, it was his professional duty to promptly notify the Tribunal and request relief. However, he failed not only to promptly inform the Tribunal of his client’s inability to meet the deadline but also to provide any reason for it in the application itself. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances prevented the Applicant from timely requesting an additional waiver of the deadline to file the application. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal is barred from waiving the deadline for the filing of the application. Counsel in this case is not acting in representation of an incapacitated person but rather as legal representative under art. 12.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure as reflected in the legal representation authorization form signed by the Applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the examples of actions cited by the Applicant provide enough information to identify the challenged decisions if the application had been receivable. Whether these actions or inactions breached the Applicant’s rights would have been a matter for a review on the merits, had the application been receivable. Despite identifying several alleged implied administrative decisions that she deemed in violation of her contractual rights over a period of time, and despite numerous exchanges with UNCEF officials in this respect during that period, the Applicant did not file her request for management evaluation on time. Therefore, the contested implied administrative decisions identified were not timely submitted for management evaluation within the statutory 60-day deadline. The parties both acknowledge that they engaged in mediation in November 2019. However, it does not appear that a waiver of the deadline for requesting management evaluation was subsequently granted in application of staff rule 11.2(d). Whether the Respondent properly addressed the issue of receivability at the management evaluation is irrelevant given that the Tribunal can review its own jurisdiction propio motu. The Tribunal reviewed both the request for management evaluation and the application and is satisfied that while articulated differently, both submissions basically refer to the same instances that the Applicant identifies as implied administrative decisions. Whether such courses of action were in breach of the Applicant’s contractual rights would have been a matter for review on the merits if the application had been receivable. Related
Failure to maintain a work environment free from sexual harassment and abuse Failure to take necessary safety and security arrangements to prevent or adequately respond to gender-related security incidents Failure to uphold the highest standard of integrity in regard to the determination of the Applicant’s conditions of employment Failure to ensure the effective participation of the Applicant in resolving issues related to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies.
A request for the waiver of a deadline to the Dispute Tribunal must ordinarily be lodged before the expiration of the deadline. The Dispute Tribunal will strictly enforce the time limits and that the degree of lateness is irrelevant once the deadline has been missed. The Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. The Dispute Tribunal is competent to review its own jurisdiction proprio motu.