Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration¡¯s refusal to grant a permanent...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not based on improper motives as had been alleged by the Applicant. Rather, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP had acted farily and transparently. Thus the Tribunal held that there was no illegality, irrationality and unfairness in the impugned decision.

The Respondent¡¯s argument that the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within 60 days was rooted in the erroneous belief that the MOU, which expressly states that it constituted notice that the Applicant¡¯s appointment would not be renewed beyond 29 February 2020 and that she would be separated as a result, related to the Applicants general right to be reabsorbed into MINUSMA. The right to a general lien is intrinsic to a secondment, meaning that it is inalienable and so the Applicant could not have contracted herself out of it. The notice of separation and...

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant¡¯s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent¡¯s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

Receivability The Applicant¡¯s appointment was extended beyond its expiration date to allow her to exhaust her medical leave entitlements. The Applicant¡¯s entitlements, had her contract been extended, would be calculated on a different scale from that applied during her sick leave. Moreover, should the contested decision be found unlawful, the Applicant could be entitled to receive compensation for the harm caused by the unlawful decision under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute regardless of any entitlements she may have benefited from during her sick leave. The application cannot...

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Applicant¡¯s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (¡°CRP¡¯). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...

1. In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

Considering that the Tribunal¡¯s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-313; Boutroue Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...