����AV

It is within the discretion of the Applicant’s SRO to make comments on her performance. “[M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted”. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.

The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the UNDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah’s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The UNAT also rejected Mr...

UNAT upheld the UNDT’s conclusion that the Administration’s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz’s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. UNAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

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 Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well‑substantiated and in line with the...

UNAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.