UNDT/2022/066, Efamb'eodje
The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant’s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant’s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further noted that while the Applicant did not contest the above facts, he pleaded ignorance of the rules relating to seeking management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that staff members are responsible for knowing the applicable regulations and rules and ensuring that they are complied with. The Applicant’s argument that the Respondent and the Tribunal should have advised him about the legal requirements was untenable since they were not under any obligation to so advise him. The Tribunal, thus, concluded that since the Applicant did not seek management evaluation, his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.
The Applicant contested the United Nations Development Programme’s decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for facts anterior to that appointment pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(a)(v).
Pursuant to staff rules 11.2 (a) and (b), (i) a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules pursuant to staff regulation 11.1 (a), shall, as a first step, submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision. (ii) a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. As per the settled jurisprudence, the Dispute Tribunal may only review decisions that have been subject of a proper and timely request for management evaluation.