The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation of the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s communications with the Human Resources Management Section of the United Nations Office in Vienna in July 2012 did not amount to a request for management evaluation, and even if they were accepted as such a request, it would have been out of time by approximately three months.
The recovery was made on the basis that the Applicant did not complete the expected period of three months of service in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI upon return from his home leave. The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were not filed within the filing deadlines. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant having been found in Egglesfield Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/208 to be in continuous service, his employment remained continuous beyond three months after his return from home leave and any recovered lump sum for home leave should...
The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant¡¯s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...
The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...
The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.
The Tribunal found the application irreceivable for want of management evaluation request.
Application of ST/AI/2002/4 to field mission personnel: The Tribunal held that since ST/AI/2002/4 excludes field mission staff members, like the Applicant, from its ambit it could not be made applicable in the current matter in the absence of a formal decision by the Secretary-General to make the administrative instruction applicable to a staff member who is clearly excluded from its purview. The Tribunal also held that ST/AI/2002/4 could not be made applicable to the Applicant by invoking the best practices rule or argument. Implementation of selection decisions: The Tribunal concluded that...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within the prescribed time period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...
