����AV

Doctrines of waiver and estoppel: If the MEU, as an integral part of the Secretariat, has already effectively declared the request for management evaluation receivable under its own time limits, the Respondent is estopped, when the same claim is pending before the Dispute Tribunal, from arguing the opposite position under the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. Extending deadlines for request for management evaluation: Section 10 of ST/SGB/2010/9 read together with staff rule 11.2(c) provides that the Respondent has delegated the authority to extend the 60 days’ deadline for filing the request for management evaluation where informal resolution efforts of the Ombudsman are pending. It does not follow automatically that the MEU is authorised to extend this deadline in other situations on an “exceptional” basis as the MEU did in this case. Granting exception to provisions in AIs: It is only reasonable to conclude that the Respondent’s authority to make exceptions to the Staff Rules, which are promulgated by the Respondent himself, extends to administrative issuances, such as ST/SGB/2010/9, that are ranked lower in the legal hierarchy than the Staff Rules. MEU’s powers to grant exceptions: Under staff rule 12.3(b), it would appear that—as an exception to the Staff Rules—the Respondent has the power to extend the time limits set out in staff rule 11.2(c) in other situations than the specific reference to informal resolution efforts by the Ombudsman, provided that the other mandatory requirements described in staff rule 12.3(b) are satisfied. Accordingly, for the MEU to do so, it could be argued that the Respondent would be required to have properly delegated his authority to grant such exception to the MEU, which the Under-Secretary-General of Management also appears to imply in her management evaluation letter. Given that the MEU is the entity in the Secretariat charged with handling the process of management evaluation under sec. 10 of ST/SGB/2010/9, there would be no reason to believe that the MEU would not possess delegated authority to extend the deadline for filing the request for management evaluation and properly to act on behalf of the Under-Secretary-General for Management and the Respondent. Under the law of agency, the MEU would appear to have the apparent, or ostensible, authority to deal with issues regarding the handling of management evaluation requests on behalf of the Respondent, including the grant of exceptions to sec. 10.2(d) and thereby extend the time limit to situations other than those where a case is pending before the Ombudsman.Costa 2010-UNAT-036: The General Assembly’s intention behind art. 8.3 of the Statute could not have been that a staff member should be unfairly shut out from exercising her/his rights to appeal where the exceptional and/or compassionate circumstances warrant a waiver of the requirements to file a request for management evaluation within certain deadlines.Was the withdrawal of the vacancy an appealable administrative decision? It follows that the administrative decision to withdraw the vacancy had a direct impact on the Applicant’s rights under the terms of her appointment or contract of employment in that she would otherwise have been an eligible candidate that could likely have been appointed to this particular post.