����AV

The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.

The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The UNAT was of the view that, as the UNDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The UNAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record...

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running.  It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely.  Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a “jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact” of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...

The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member’s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant’s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The UNAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The UNAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The UNAT found that the UNDT had made an error of fact...