UNDT/2023/005

UNDT/2023/005, Uzele

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the contested administrative decision. Since the warning letter in question was issued on 8 June 2022 and the Applicant filed his application on 11 November 2022, the application was therefore, belated.

The Tribunal further found the application irreceivable due to the lack of a reviewable administrative decision. It was not contested that the Administration withdrew the warning letter and as such rendering the issue moot. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested what he described as the decision of 14 October 2022 by the Management Evaluation Unit to not make a determination on the merits of his management evaluation request relating to the claim for compensation for damages in a case of defamation contained in the 8 June 2022 warning letter to him for unacceptable behaviour.

Legal Principle(s)

1. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In such cases, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b),

[w]here a staff member is not required to request a management evaluation, pursuant to staff rule 11.2 (b), he or she may file an application directly with the United Nations Dispute Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the contested administrative decision.

2. Further, pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal's Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass judgment on,

… an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment. The terms “contract” and “terms of appointment” include all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged non- compliance …

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Uzele

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :