Â鶹´«Ã½

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1)Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2)Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3)Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant’s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican’s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration’s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-UNAT-1120, para. 28). The...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant’s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO’s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the UNJSPF Regulations. When she...

In relation to the Applicant’s first claim, the Tribunal held that pursuant to staff rule 6.2 the entitlement to sick leave does not follow a cycle calculated since the date of appointment as argued by the Applicant, but, rather, is calculated pursuant to its own cycle determined by the date of the sick leave. The Tribunal thus concluded that the method used by the administration to calculate the Applicant's sick leave days was consistent with staff rule 6.2, while the method advocated by the Applicant was not. Accordingly, the application failed on the score of sick leave. On the Applicant’s...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation.

The Applicant was not notified of any indebtedness to the Organization or called upon to settle it, as required by ST/AI/155/Rev.2. The initial withholding did not have the required authorization in the USG/Management’s decision; rather, it was applied in an arbitrary and obscure fashion, with the Applicant learning of it only by the fact that the pension was not forthcoming. It was apparent that, starting with the irregularity of not informing the Applicant of the withholding decision for two months following his separation, the Administration had not seriously undertaken to establish either...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable because the contested decision was made on 21 May 2020 and the Applicant requested management evaluation on 25 October 2020, based on a later decision by MONUSCO dated on 8 October 2020. The Tribunal held that the 8 October 2020 email did not reset the time line for requesting management evaluation because it was a reiteration of the 21 May 2020 decision. The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal held that “the reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timelines; rather...

The contested decision having been rescinded by the Administration was, therefore, not a final administrative decision capable of review by this Tribunal, which, consequently, can make no pronouncement as to its legality or as to any effects it may have caused. The Applicant’s claim that the rescission of the contested decision constitutes an admission of its unlawfulness is without merit. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal notes that in this case, the Applicant does not claim any abuse of the current proceedings, nor does the Tribunal observe any such...