51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required 51ÁÔÆæ his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for rescission of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that it was irreceivable insofar as decisions to extend a staff member¡¯s appointment are not decisions adversely affecting a staff member and thus are not subject to appeal. As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for a two-year renewal, the Tribunal further found that there were no legal provisions stipulating a particular duration of a fixed-term appointment.

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.

The UNDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The UNDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the UNDT. The UNDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the UNDT on account of her being a former staff...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.