51ÁÔÆæ

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the UNON Security and Safety Service (UNON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the UNON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with UNFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the UNFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant¡¯s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant¡¯s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member¡¯s terms of employment...

No submission or further correspondence was received by the Registry from the Applicant. The Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which was therefore deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stood to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

it is undisputed that the Administration did not afford the Applicant written notice so he learnt about the non-renewal only upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. This practice, however, does not disable the right to seek review of the non-renewal decision by the UNDT. The Tribunal considers that the objective factual element as to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment consists in the memorandum instructing the Applicant to commence his separation procedure, dated 4 January and delivered to the Applicant on 11 January 2016. Recalling that the Applicant sought information...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the decision not to return her to the post she previously encumbered, since the Applicant was transferred to another Organization, she no longer has any contractual relationship, and therefore any lien to a post, with the United Nations Secretariat from the date of the transfer. The only remedy that the Applicant seeks is the return to the post she previously encumbered or assignment to a suitable vacant position in New York, and the Tribunal cannot order such remedy due to the cessation of the Applicant¡¯s contractual relationship with the United Nations...

An inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of an appraisal may be a receivable ground for contesting an administrative decision, but is not an administrative decision, unless the Applicant demonstrates that it had, by itself, a direct and negative impact on a staff member¡¯s conditions of service. Thus, the Applicant needed to show that the delay in conducting the rebuttal process on her rating ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡±, by itself, had a direct and negative impact on her conditions of service. In this regard, the Applicant claimed that this delay negatively affected her...

The decision communicated to the Applicant on 29 March 2019 presents essentially the relief sought by the Applicant in his application dated 4 March 2019 and while the Applicant is still insisting on clarification from the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe (RSCE) as to the basis for the impugned decision, this neither minimizes nor negates the fact that the administration acceded to his request and rescinded the impugned decision altogether. The Applicant has not tendered any particulars or evidence to support, prove and/or explain his allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and mental...

Regarding the merits, the abolishment of a number of posts was decided by the; General Assembly. This decision is outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The SecretaryGeneral¡¯s role was to implement it through identifying particular posts for reduction. In the process, the Applicant¡¯s post was so selected, which entailed the decision on termination of his appointment. The Tribunal¡¯s cognizance extends over reviewing the appropriateness of the steps which led to this decision, however, in so far only as they are attributed to the Secretary-General. Prima facie, the Tribunal finds no reason to...

The fact that the Applicant was a staff member of UNOPS when he applied for these contractor positions is not relevant to appreciate the receivability of the Applicant¡¯s claims since, in the four instant cases, he contests four decisions not to select him on non-staff positions.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as it was filed after the statutory time limit under art. 8.1 of its Statute expired.