����AV

The Applicant’s professional counsel, by his own admission, was well aware that the Applicant would not be able to meet the filing deadline as he encountered difficulties in getting instructions from her. Contrary to his assertion, it was his professional duty to promptly notify the Tribunal and request relief. However, he failed not only to promptly inform the Tribunal of his client’s inability to meet the deadline but also to provide any reason for it in the application itself. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances prevented the Applicant from timely...

The Tribunal found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, the ABCC’s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC’s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant’s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c). The decision to abolish the Applicant’s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract is also...

Pursuant to staff rule 9.6(c), the Secretary-General may terminate the appointment of a staff member who, like the Applicant, holds a continuing appointment in accordance with the terms of the appointment on the grounds of “unsatisfactory service”. The Secretary-General has delegated this authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management (USG/DM) according to annex IV on delegation of human resources authorities to ST/SGB/2019/2 regarding delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules (see p. 21). No exception to this delegation of authority is made...

The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The Applicant’s request for management evaluation on 13 November 2017 was filed more than 60 days after the notification of the decision on 31 March 2017.

Receivability The Applicant did not request management evaluation of the following contested decisions: 1) The Administration’s failure to take appropriate action in relation to her complaint; 2) Undue delays in the investigation, in the initiation and conducting of a disciplinary process, and in taking the final decision on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against her former supervisors; and 3) The Administration’s failure to take appropriate action to protect her from sexual harassment in her workplace environment and to remedy the harm suffered. Moreover, the Tribunal is not...

Management evaluation not requested within the statutory deadline. Application not receivable ratione materiae.

Management evaluation of the decision concerning Applicant's share of contribution for medical insurance not filed within the statutory deadline. Consequently, this part of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Application is receivable concerning the decision concerning the Applicant's share of contribution for the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF). Art. 25.b)i) of the UNJSPF Regulations clearly provides that contributions during SLWOP are paid either 1) in full by the staff member, 2) in full by the employing Organization or 3) partly by the staff member and...

UNDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. UNDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.