Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.

it is undisputed that the Administration did not afford the Applicant written notice so he learnt about the non-renewal only upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. This practice, however, does not disable the right to seek review of the non-renewal decision by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Tribunal considers that the objective factual element as to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment consists in the memorandum instructing the Applicant to commence his separation procedure, dated 4 January and delivered to the Applicant on 11 January 2016. Recalling that the Applicant sought information...

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant¡¯s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant¡¯s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.

Regarding the merits, the abolishment of a number of posts was decided by the; General Assembly. This decision is outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The SecretaryGeneral¡¯s role was to implement it through identifying particular posts for reduction. In the process, the Applicant¡¯s post was so selected, which entailed the decision on termination of his appointment. The Tribunal¡¯s cognizance extends over reviewing the appropriateness of the steps which led to this decision, however, in so far only as they are attributed to the Secretary-General. Prima facie, the Tribunal finds no reason to...

Receivability The Tribunal found the application receivable ratione temporis. Merits The Tribunal considered that while the Administration has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its staff members in the management of the social security system and relevant entitlements, the system is based on certification and reporting, with the main responsibility for providing the Administration with the required medical certificates and reports lying on the staff member. Staff members must strictly comply with the legal requirements and provide complete material that contains sufficient precision, including the...

Background for the examination of the issues in this case

The Tribunal found that the wayin which the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (¡°OAIS¡±) conducted its investigation clearly led to great unfairness to the Applicant given the circumstances of this case.

Financial loss to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA

Since a pivotal part of the scope of the investigation was to establish financial loss to the Organization and or financial benefit to the Applicant as a result of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA leases, it was surprising for the Tribunal to note that there was no certain finding of the actual financial loss that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...