51ÁÔÆæ

Section 3.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 imposes a ¡°duty¡± on the Administration ¡°to take all appropriate measures¡± with a view to ¡°promot[ing] a harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct¡±, but very limited statutory guidance is otherwise provided in the provision on what such measures could be in practice. The only example, at least as relevant to the present case, appears to be that ¡°complaints of prohibited conduct are promptly addressed in a fair and impartial manner¡±. A search of the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s jurisprudence reveals that the...

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...

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance¡ªat least, as relevant to the present case¡ªthe Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a ¡°prescribed...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as irreceivable. The Applicant had requested the Tribunal to order a rescission of the decision to permanently withdraw his MINUSCA¡¯s driver¡¯s permit. The Tribunal noted that this request had been satisfied by the Administration. The relief having been fully granted, there was no longer a justiciable matter before the Tribunal, thus rendering the application moot.

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, there was no decision imposing disciplinary or administrative measures. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of any administrative decision related to the conduct of the investigation. The failure to seek management evaluation before...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.

Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.

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.

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...