����AV

For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a “management evaluation request”. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission’s Chief of Staff, constitutes “management evaluation” for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.

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 Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant’s intent was to file an application...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

This case revealed overt sexual harassment where both words and physical touching were used and attempted to extract sexual favour, but even though no such favour was extracted, the harassment caused harm to the victim who was put in fear of loss of her position in the Organization and caused unnecessary tension in the staff relations between the persons involved.

In this case both words and acts were used together during a short period of persistence. When this happens in a work setting it can cause serious emotional stress and hurt. Based on the evidence this is what occurred in this case.

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 concluded that the promulgation of ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, which restrictively redefined enrolment-related fees, did not conform to General Assembly resolution 70/244. As such, its promulgation was an abuse of the Administration’s discretion and its application in reviewing the Applicant’s education grant for her son was unlawful.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was correct in that the fees that she claimed were admissible as tuition, in addition to being enrolment-related. Thus, the decision to deny reimbursement for those fees was unlawful.

The Tribunal...

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...