����AV

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The Tribunal noted that the allegations of poor behaviour and the fact that those behaviours undermined the Applicant’s capacity to discharge the responsibilities assigned to him in an effective manner were not included in his performance evaluations. The fact that the allegations later became the subject of the email to the USGs of the Department of ����AVkeeping Operations and the Department of Field Service and formed the basis for the decision to reassign the Applicant to another office showed that there was no transparency on the part of the Respondent in the matter. The Tribunal also...

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant’s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.

Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant’s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within UNIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated and therefore, found no basis to impugn the contested decision. As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety.

The fact that the Applicant had only a few months left to reach full retirement age and that if she had been allowed to reach mandatory retirement age her terminal benefits would have been better than what she received on termination, or the fact that the Field Staff Union intervened to have her granted a brief extension, or that she was afforded less days’ official notice before termination do not constitute valid grounds for alleging that the abolition of her post was irregular. These were not relevant matters that the Administration was obliged to consider. The Respondent conceded that one...

Since the Applicant in this case is separated, he can no longer be reassigned, as he requests. The application is therefore moot.

On the issue of reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was reassigned to a position at the same grade and level commensurate with her skills and competencies. By Inter-Office-Memorandum dated 18 August 2020, the Under-Secretary-General for Operational Support (“USG/DOS”) reassigned the Applicant to another P-5 position, allowing her to maintain her grade, level and contract status. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant had not met her burden to show that the contested decision was ill-motivated or in bad faith. Mere assertions and innuendo were insufficient. On the...

The Tribunal recalls that there is a procedure to challenge administrative decisions which a staff member deems to be in violation of his or her contractual rights. The Applicant, who is represented by professional counsel, cannot bypass the applicable procedures to indirectly introduce decisions, which were not timely challenged, into these proceedings to argue that they form part of a pattern of abuse against her. To allow this tactic would result in an upset of the administrative legal order of the Organization. The Tribunal notes that Applicant disagrees with UNICEF’s evaluation of her...