����AV

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.  The contested decision before the UNDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the UNDT.  The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.  Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred with respect to the period for which the staff member was entitled to an SPA.  The UNDT found that the requirements for an SPA had been met for the period 1 August 2015 to 31 January 2018, but due to the timing of his request in December 2018, he was entitled to payment only starting 21 December 2017.  The UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General’s argument that even this payment was in error, because the staff member’s claim to the SPA was made several years after the entitlement to the initial payment came into play in August 2015.  The UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. UNAT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. UNAT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. UNAT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. UNAT held...

UNAT held that UNDT’s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration’s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. UNAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration’s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The UNDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants’ post at the S-3 level, the UNDT found that the Applicants’ claims regarding the Administration’s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case—including oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents—the Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the UNDT found that the Administration’s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants’ posts at the S-3 level was...

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant’s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants’ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant’s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

The Tribunal held that the denial of the Applicant’s request for retroactive promotion was lawful. The Tribunal advanced the following reasons: a) It was legitimate for the ASG/OHRM to invoke a reason for denial of retroactive promotion that would have created technical problems and additional costs as pension contributions; b) The deninal of the Applicant’s request for a retroactive promotion was not unlawful because of the length of the selection process, given that the selection concerned a promotion for a D-1 position requiring utmost care in the examination and consideration of the...

The Tribunal found that the application, insofar as it contests the SPA decision and the Reclassification decision, is not receivable. The Applicant submitted his SPA claim three years too late, therefore, his claim is timebarred. As the Applicant never requested reclassification, there is no final administrative decision regarding reclassification. Without a final administrative decision regarding classification, the Dispute Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Reclassification decision. The Tribunal found that the ToRs decision was lawful on the basis that the Administration...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been “shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member” (see Michaud 2017-UNAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...