Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Trinunal found that the Applicant¡¯s contest to the decision of 19 July 2021 to place him on ALWP was time-barred as the Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision within the stipulated deadline. The Tribunal found that the subsquent decisions to extend the Applicant¡¯s placement on ALWP were lawful.

The Tribunal found that Applicant¡¯s persistent refusal to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS evaluations for staff members for whom the Applicant was the First Reporting Officer ("FRO") and engage with KJ constituted misconduct. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant...

The Applicant¡¯s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.

In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the United Nations Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant¡¯s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.

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.

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant¡¯s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...

Receivability

The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.

First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.

Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...

Applicant¡¯s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the¡°harm this case has caused¡± him and the ¡°sensitive information¡± referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and the reasons provided by the Respondent for not selecting the Applicant and concluded that based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Respondent¡¯s decision not to select him cannot be faulted as being unfair. The Applicant did not have the CIPS level 2 certification that was a mandatory requirement for the position, and he did not prove that he had two years of progressive experience in procurement management.

Furthermore, the Applicant¡¯s suggestion in his submissions that the selection panel ought not to have relied only on his...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

Merits

The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

Receivability

The Applicant correctly submitted that he was not contesting the promulgation of the Mobility AI. It was clear from the content of the application that he did not challenge the existence of the Mobility AI as a regulatory decision of the Secretary-General affecting all staff members. Instead, he was contesting the impact of what he perceived as a specific decision made after he accepted the offer of appointment, i.e., that the Mobility AI would be a term of his employment contract. The Tribunal thus found the application receivable.

Merits

The Tribunal established that the Applicant...