Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days¡¯ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that given...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the facts underlying the written reprimand were established. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Ms. Kamara-Joyner¡¯s advocacy for an individual staff member was outside of her roles and duties in both her capacity as a Conflict Resolution Officer for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS and as President of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPAD. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Kamara-Joyner failed to expressly seek approval for the conflict of interest between her two roles and refused to follow instructions on removing the conflict of interest. Accordingly, she was subject to a disciplinary or administrative measure. The...

The written reprimand

Factual basis for the imposition of the measure

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPAD, as an ad hoc special interest group, advocates for issues relating to conditions of work pertaining to staff members of African descent in the United Nations.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS is established ¡°to make available confidential services of impartial and independent persons to address work-related issues of staff members¡± (see ST/SGB/2016/7 para 1.1). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS is guided in its work by four core principles, namely independence, confidentiality, neutrality, and informality.

It appeared from the information on record that the Applicant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...