Management Evaluation
The Commissioner-General appealed.
The UNAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.
The UNAT found that Ms. Abou Salah’s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...
Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.
The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.
Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...
The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.
The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...
Ms. Mkhabela appealed.
As regards receivability ratione temporis, the UNAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela’s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...
This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.
The application is dismissed.
The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It “operates under the authority” of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational “independence”. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...
The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.
UNAT held that the Appellant’s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...
The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.