Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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

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 Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant¡¯s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member¡¯s terms of employment...

No submission or further correspondence was received by the Registry from the Applicant. The Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which was therefore deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stood to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

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...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

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.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the decision not to return her to the post she previously encumbered, since the Applicant was transferred to another Organization, she no longer has any contractual relationship, and therefore any lien to a post, with the United Nations Secretariat from the date of the transfer. The only remedy that the Applicant seeks is the return to the post she previously encumbered or assignment to a suitable vacant position in New York, and the Tribunal cannot order such remedy due to the cessation of the Applicant¡¯s contractual relationship with the United Nations...