51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before UNDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. UNDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. UNDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Tribunal found the Applicant¡¯s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...

Legitimate interest in the outcome of the case: Given that an Applicant has no option of returning to the post he formerly encumbered, any decision regarding the classification of that post cannot impact his rights. There exists no direct legal consequence between any classification decision and his terms of appointment; therefore the application is not receivable.

The UNDT considered that the Applicant¡¯s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ¡®promptness¡¯ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the UNDT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the UNDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc¡¯ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...