The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.
Mr. Hassan appealed the UNDT judgment.
The UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the UNDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...
The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.
The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...
The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.
Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...
The UNAT first addressed the staff member’s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The UNAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the UNDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the UNDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The UNAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...
Ms. Mkhabela appealed.
As regards receivability ratione temporis, the UNAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela’s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...
This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.
The application is dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it included two Microsoft Outlook notifications which established that the administrative decision was delivered to and read by the Applicant on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications.
The Tribunal thus held that that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the application was...
The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.
To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to “suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation” (art. 8.3 of its Statute).
Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s request...
Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.
In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.
While there are...
