51ÁÔÆæ

The ASG/OHR considered all the relevant facts, and weighed the reasons provided by the Director of the RSCE. She considered the circumstances surrounding the Applicant¡¯s prior service on a temporary appointment, and the exception previously granted to the Applicant¡¯s sister.

The Respondent created no legitimate expectation that the exception previously granted to the Applicant¡¯s sister would automatically result in the Applicant being later granted an exception, too; indeed, the derogation in the past had a different factual basis in the type and length of the relationship (and the temporary...

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, UNAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. UNAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Tribunal concludes that the contested decision, lawful or not, does not result from a disciplinary process and is therefore not exempted from management evaluation. Accordingly, in application of staff rule 11.2, the Applicant ought to have requested management evaluation before filing his appeal before this Tribunal. Having failed to do so, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.