2014-Ģ��ƵAT-404

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no reason to interfere with Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving Ģ��ƵDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability. Ģ��ƵAT declared that Ģ��ƵDT��s consideration of the staff consultations and discrimination arguments was without legal authority.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to force him to improperly use the electronic Flex Time system for time and attendance recording. Ģ��ƵDT issued a judgment on receivability, concluding that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae, as the Applicant had not provided Ģ��ƵDT with any persuasive arguments that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. Ģ��ƵDT, citing Allen (judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2010/009), determined that any requirement regarding staff consultation was met as each of the parties had had the opportunity to make the other party aware of its views. Ģ��ƵDT also rejected the Applicant��s argument of discrimination, finding the fact that a practice may not be required by other departments did not render the implementation of such a system within the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management discriminatory.

Legal Principle(s)

While it is not sufficient for an applicant merely to establish that an administrative decision was taken, for him or her to have standing before Ģ��ƵDT, it is also not sufficient for a Respondent to state that the administrative decision was of general rather than an individual application for it to not be receivable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Bauza Mercere

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement