Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

The case was referred to the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS¡±).

Upon confirmation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS that the referral was accepted as per para. 7 of Practice Direction No. 3 (Mediation), the proceedings would be suspended for 30 calendar days.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant requested the interim measure of ¡°[s]uspension of [a]ction of the proposed separation of the Applicant¡± under art. 14 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the application concerned termination, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

In any event, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented and that the Applicant had...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA¡¯s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable in respect to the five contested decsions in the Applicant's application. The Tribunal found that, inter alia, the Applicant failed either to request management evaluation of a contested decision or because the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation was time barred. With respect to contested decision 5, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant had failed to clearly identify a reviewable administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the possible error in the assessment of the facts by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no bearing on the outcome of the case, the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal could not be received.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that although an Ivorian Court judgment, finding the staff member guilty of fraud, had not been cited in the sanction letter, this was inconsequential because it was clear from the record that he had been aware of the judgment when he applied for the position and completed the PHP specifying ¡°no¡± to the question whether he had ¡°ever been indicted, fined or imprisoned for the violation of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member¡¯s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...

Mr. Pierre filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable. The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre¡¯s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...