�鶹��ý

The Tribunal held that:

a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

c.The Applicant’s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

d. The record was...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant’s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant’s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.

The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...

The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant’s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.

As to the...

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant’s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent’s request for an award of costs.

The Applicant was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. He did not.

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a “management evaluation request”. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission’s Chief of Staff, constitutes “management evaluation” for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.