51ÁÔÆæ

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.

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...

UNDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. UNDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with UNDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. UNDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

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...

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 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.