51ÁÔÆæ

Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process.Outcome: Application rejected on receivability

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (UNDT/2012/029) ¨C merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

Certification of sick leave: If some staff members as a matter of practice communicated directly with the MSD rather than through their mission, such practice does not detract from or modify written legislation.Recognised regional medical centres: A country in serious political, economic and security situation was unlikely to be the place to seek adequate medical treatment for an ailment recognised by the organization as a condition for medical evacuation. Recovery of overpayment: The United Nations being a humanitarian organization and in providing humanitarian assistance worldwide, needs to...

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that ¡°[s]eparation as a result of ¡­ expiration of appointment ¡­ shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules¡±. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).

Attempted theft: In the instant case, the Applicant¡¯s counsel cites the 23 June 2011 Judgment and argued that ¡°it follows that whereas the offence of an attempt to commit an act that could amount, if completed, to misconduct is not envisaged as a sanctionable offence within the prevailing legislative framework of the United Nations, the dismissal of the Applicant must be held to have been ultra vires.¡± This interpretation and application of the Tribunal¡¯s reasoning in the said judgment to this case and the Applicant¡¯s circumstances is misconceived and misleading. This is because the offence of...

Assessment of irreparable damage in relation to non-selection decisions: The applicant was not the only recommended candidate and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he would have been selected for the litigious post. Accordingly, he failed to show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him irreparable damage.

Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. Requirement to request for management evaluation for former staff members: Irrespective of whether an applicant is a current or a former staff member of the United Nations, he or she must request a management evaluation, where required, prior to filing his or her application with the Dispute Tribunal. Legal hierarchy and request for management evaluation: Even assuming that staff rule 11.2(a), insofar as it is silent on whether a former staff member must also request...

Receivability/administrative decision: It would be inconsistent with its standard of review to allow the Tribunal to interfere with the review of a performance appraisal before the rebuttal process has been finalised.