����AV

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal’s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome:

The Tribunal found the Applicant’s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant’s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...

Following successful settlement discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing all of her allegations and claims. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, the dispute having been settled by way of a settlement agreement, the Applicant withdrew her case fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The case was closed without liberty to reinstate or appeal.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Following the Tribunal’s judgment on receivability (Judgment No. UNDT/2012/149) and inter partes discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement or appeal. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant’s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Tribunal finds that, pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the Applicant’s claim is receivable. Meaning of an “agreement reached through mediation” - A plain reading of the full text of art. 8.2 requires that a mediated agreement must be reduced in to writing and signed by the parties as otherwise it would be inconceivable how the implementation of such an agreement would be enforced as provided for in the latter part of art. 8.2 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the applicable time limits. The Tribunal found that in respect to decision 3, the Applicant requested management evaluation outside the prescribed time limit and therefore the Application with regard to decision 3 was not receivable. Mediation and Time-Limits: If a party to a dispute makes mediation overtures within the applicable time lines for filing an Application and the other party consents to participation in the mediation process then the time limit for filing an Application is suspended and begins to run when the mediation has...

The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate and without prejudice to the Applicant’s right, if necessary, to file an application under art. 2.1(c) of the UNDT Statute seeking to enforce the implementation of the agreement reached through mediation.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten UNDT/2011/094. The UNDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87–88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal’s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...