The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.
The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.
The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...
The UNAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The UNAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The UNAT found that the Organization’s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The UNAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi’s allegations that his...
The Tribunal's findings were as follows:
The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.
It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.
The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant’s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...
The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.
The UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.
The UNAT found that the UNDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member’s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.
The UNAT noted that the UNDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when UNICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...
Mr. Pierre filed an appeal. UNAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable. The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre’s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour. UNAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...
Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The UNAT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation. Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that UNDT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged...
The various acts submitted by the Respondent—General Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...
Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.
