����AV

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the UNDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of “technical body” in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

The Tribunal held that the evidence before it showed that the Applicant had signed a contract with UNOPS governed by the terms and conditions of the UNOPS Individual Contractor Agreement which, among others, provided that the Applicant had a status of an independent contractor, and was not to be regarded, for any purpose, as a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the United Nations. Therefore, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the United Nations, had no locus standi before the Tribunal. As a result, the application was struck out as being not...

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

UNDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the UN, had no locus standi before UNDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, UNDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant’s...

The fact that the Applicant was a staff member of UNOPS when he applied for these contractor positions is not relevant to appreciate the receivability of the Applicant’s claims since, in the four instant cases, he contests four decisions not to select him on non-staff positions.

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...

In the absence of any evidence of ongoing mediation efforts or request for suspension of deadline to file an application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant, having filed his application outside of the statutory deadline. In any event, given that the contested administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 3 April 2019, the request for management evaluation of 8 September 2019 would have missed the 60-day deadline set in staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation. Given that settlement discussions are confidential in nature, it is the parties’ responsibility to...

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants requested management evaluation timeously. 2) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips of February 2018. 3) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay component. 4) The Tribunal rejected the claim that discretion is a criterion for receivability. Merits The ICSC’s...

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants requested management evaluation timeously. 2) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips of February 2018. 3) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay component. 4) The Tribunal rejected the claim that discretion is a criterion for receivability. Merits The ICSC’s...