UNDT/2016/118, Reid
The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.
The Applicant contested the failure of his former Counsel from the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (“OSLA”) to file a timeous application on the merits in proceedings that resulted in Judgment No. UNDT/2016/011 (Reid) in Cases No. UNDT/NY/2015/023 and 030.
Independence of OSLA: OSLA is administratively part of the Office of the Administration of Justice (“OAJ”). The Chief of OSLA reports to the Executive Director of the OAJ, who, in turn, reports to the Secretary-General, “without prejudice to the independence of the OAJ”. However, as the Dispute Tribunal stated in Worsley UNDT/2011/024 (affirmed in Worsley 2012-UNAT-199), while reporting administratively to the Executive Director of the OAJ and therefore to the Secretary-General, OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests. The Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal have found that services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is carried out may have an impact on a staff member’s terms of appointment and therefore may be subject to an appeal. However, both Tribunals have reiterated that OSLA decisions may fall within the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal “without interfering with the professional independence of counsel” (Larkin 2011-UNAT-135) and to the “extent that they are strictly administrative decisions and are not related to the giving of advice to litigants or the conduct of cases before the [Tribunal]” (Onana UNDT/2011/204 (not appealed)).