����AV

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for ����AVkeeping Operations. The...

The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the administrative decision after the 60 day deadline for requesting a management evaluation had passed. Her Application was therefore not receivable as the Tribunal is not competent to extend the deadline for a request for management evaluation.

As consistently held by UNAT, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Time limits prescribed for administrative review (and management evaluation under the new system), which could be waived under the previous system, cannot be waived under article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in article 8.3.

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

Time limit to request management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. Confirmative decisions: Confirmative decisions do not have the effect of reopening time limits for appeal.

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant’s...

The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the UNDT. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the UNDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s repeated renewal of the Applicant’s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant’s MEU request indicated that he...