¹ú²úAV

Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent’s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management evaluation of such decision and therefore the application is receivable. Merits The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not come to the Tribunal with clean hands as there were irregularities regarding her receipt of payment of SPA for an extended period.; Much part of the six years she received SPA was in fact not in accordance with the rules of the organization. Being at the highest level of General Services at GS-7 in human resources, the Applicant should have objected to being irregularly paid SPA, rather than continue to request for it. The Organization provided sufficient explanation as to why she was not entitled to SPA. Her team leader and/or delegated certifying officer duties were normally within the functions of a G-7 Senior Human Resources Assistant. The application was dismissed for lack of merit.