����AV

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant’s case rests firmly at her own door.

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the UN do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant’s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant’s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS’ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the UNDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc’ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The UNDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from UNOPS to WHO and back to UNOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to UNOPS, and her separation from UNOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The 11 percent increase in the US Embassy salaries from June 2008 were properly factored into the calculations, but the 2010 increase fell outside the data range for the collection and consideration of data for the 2010 review. There was no evidence of ill motivation or breaches of the relevant rules and guidelines by the Administration.; The Administration did not breach any of the provisions of the Manual when it reached the decision concerning family expenditure surveys. The Office of Human Resources Management used the correct criteria for deciding if a spousal allowance should be created...

The Applicant is “not contest[ing] the proportionality of the sanction(s) imposed”. Consequently, the Tribunal need only consider if not reporting another staff member’s violation ST/SGB/2004/15 was correctly considered by the Respondent as being the Applicant’s misconduct, whether his due process rights were respected and whether all the mitigating circumstances were taken into account. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant requested, and was denied, either access to counsel or further opportunities to defend himself during the investigation conducted by OIOS. With...