51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. UNDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. UNDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. UNDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. UNDT dismissed all claims.

Receivability The Tribunal found that the ASG, OHRM¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s complaint almost nine months after its filing, taking into account only the period that preceded the request for management evaluation, is a clear violation of the provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5. The Tribunal considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to act on the Applicant¡¯s complaint amounted to an implicit administrative decision that was subject to judicial review. The application was therefore considered receivable. Merits The Tribunal found that the failure to process the Applicant¡¯s complaint...

Receivability What is the contested decision? The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the decision to grant her a permanent appointment, as argued by the Respondent. Rather, the Applicant contested the decision not to ¡°provide her with an effective remedy¡± after having been granted a permanent appointment with retroactive effect to 30 June 2009, namely not being given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, not being granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity. Does the principle of ¡°res judicata¡± apply? The Applicant requests to be...

The Tribunal noted the application of two salary scales in this case. One salary scale, effective from 1 January 2015, was applicable to all staff recruited to the General Services category at the Bangkok duty station on or after 1 March 2012. The other salary scale applied to those who were recruited prior to 1 March 2012. The Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment were set by specific agreement and were not impacted in any manner by any decision which was implemented in January 2015 or were disclosed to him when he received his first payslip. He agreed to certain terms and conditions in the offer...

Although each claim was being dealt with separately, given the resolution agreed between the parties, the Tribunal ordered that these claims be subject to an order for combined proceedings. There being no matter for judicial consideration and determination in these cases, the cases were closed.

The Tribunal noted the application of two salary scales in this case. One salary scale, effective from 1 January 2015, was applicable to all staff recruited to the General Services category at the Bangkok duty station on or after 1 March 2012. The other salary scale applied to those who were recruited prior to 1 March 2012. The Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment were set by specific agreement and were not impacted in any manner by any decision which was implemented in January 2015 or were disclosed to him when he received his first payslip. He agreed to certain terms and conditions in the offer...

UNDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. UNDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...

Any irregularity in the selection process had no impact on the selection status of the Applicant because, no matter what, she had no foreseeable chance of promotion.

UNDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. UNDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. UNDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

UNDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. UNDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. UNDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, UNDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of UNDT. UNDT held that the EOD date as...

UNAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

UNDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the UN, had no locus standi before UNDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, UNDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and...

As the matter was settled by mutual agreement, the case is closed.

UNDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. UNDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. UNDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. UNDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

The Tribunal noted that not only is the payment of SPA discretionary, certain conditions must be met before it is considered and granted. One of these conditions is that the applicant¡¯s supervisor submits a statement to indicate that he took up the full functions of a higher-level post and whether he demonstrated an ability to fully meet the performance expectations of all functions of the post. The Tribunal noted that even though OSLA counsel initiated a request for SPA on behalf of the Applicant, his supervisor did not submit the statement as required and showed through emails and other...

The changes in the composition of the assessment panel constituted a procedural error. The choice was left to the hiring manager between different assessment methods. As the Applicant was shortlisted for the competency-based interview, she suffered no prejudice from the absence of a written test. The Applicant disagreed with the evaluation method elected by the Administration but failed to show that the Administration exceeded its discretion in this respect. It could not be concluded that the Applicant would have obtained a different result had the composition of the panel been the same for...

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

As the Applicant withdrew claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.