The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant¡¯s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be ¡°a unilateral decision taken by the...
An applicant must identify, or define, a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The contested decision which may be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal is not the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation, but the administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. When deciding the scope of the case, the Tribunal is not limited to the parties¡¯ own identification and definition of the contested administrative decision(s) and may, based on the submissions, seek...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.
At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant¡¯s characterization of the contested decision as a ¡°written reprimand¡± in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (¡°MTS¡±), the Applicant¡¯s claim in this...
The Tribunal observed that the Organization had decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment following his being declared persona non grata in Sudan. In practical terms, this could have necessitated redeployment of post, reassignment, administrative leave or, ultimately, non-extension of the appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s claim to remain in office in the country where he was unwelcome was, in any event, unfounded. The Tribunal, further found that the Organization had fulfilled its legal obligations towards the Applicant and the impugned decision was lawful. Consequently, the...
