51ÁÔÆæ

The issue raised in the application was not submitted for management evaluation. The application is not receivable. Related

Pursuant to staff rule 9.6(c), the Secretary-General may terminate the appointment of a staff member who, like the Applicant, holds a continuing appointment in accordance with the terms of the appointment on the grounds of ¡°unsatisfactory service¡±. The Secretary-General has delegated this authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management (USG/DM) according to annex IV on delegation of human resources authorities to ST/SGB/2019/2 regarding delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules (see p. 21). No exception to this delegation of authority is made...

Having reviewed the motion, the Tribunal found that it raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction which it addressed sua sponte and found the application not receivable ratione materiae. The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the internal justice system.

The Applicant timely requested management evaluation of the contested decision and has met the procedural requirements to have this Tribunal adjudicate her case. The application is therefore receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal considered that from provisions in ST/AI/2010/5 and ST/AI/2010/4, derives a general principle to complete performance evaluations before separation applicable also to staff members holding a fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal found that the Organization had to make a balancing exercise of the Applicant¡¯s different performance results and could not simply act as...

The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 13 November 2017 was filed more than 60 days after the notification of the decision on 31 March 2017.

The irregularities detected in the selection process were of such gravity¡ªnot keeping any written record of the contested administrative decision, an undefined decisionmaker, and flawed reasons and justifications¡ªthat they cannot be regarded as minor procedural or substantive errors that did not impact the outcome of the non-selection decision. Accordingly, the Respondent was not been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature for the post was fully and fairly considered. Four other candidates had been shortlisted for the written test for the relevant post. Had the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.

The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The contested decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File is not an appealable administrative decision as it has no direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of his appointment. The Applicant should have requested a management evaluation within 60 days from the notification of the contested decisions on 5 August 2017, but instead he requested a management evaluation on 3 November 2017, more than 60 days later. Therefore, the application is not receivable as time-barred. The contested decision not to...

On the first issue of placing of the note on the Applicant¡¯s personnel file, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not dispute that the Respondent complied with ST/AI/292 which governs placement of adverse materials on personnel files. The Applicant conceded that the Respondent acted within the law. The Applicant also provided his comments on the note. On that basis, the application on the first issue was found not receivable as it did not disclose any administrative decision that had any direct legal consequences on the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of his employment. On the second issue...

The record provided to Central Review Panel (CRB) was incomplete. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate with a minimal showing that the Applicant¡¯s job candidature was properly assessed by a CRB. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate with a minimal showing that the Applicant received a timely notification of her application being unsuccessful. The general principle provides that the responses to a written test should be graded on an anonymous basis to give full and fair consideration to the job candidatures. Copying members of an assessment panel into an...