Management evaluation: Pursuant to well-settled case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. Improper motives: The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence that the contested decision was tainted by improper motives.
The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of UNMIT’s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The UNDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The UNDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The UNDT also found...
Effect of reversal of decision on compensation: Because the contested decision was reversed by the Administration does not necessarily mean that the applicant is not entitled to claim compensation for the damage s/he may have suffered as a result of the unlawful decision. In a case where the Administration reversed the contested decision at the management evaluation stage, if an applicant can prove that s/he still sustains or sustained an injury resulting from the unlawful decision despite the rescission of the same, s/he has grounds for claiming compensation.Outcome:
Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...
Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.
Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the UNDT. The UNDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The UNDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...
Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT made the following findings: The preliminary fact-finding investigation was initiated properly, but was flawed, because the Applicant was not re-interviewed or given the opportunity to answer the allegations of sexual harassment in writing after the full scope of allegations became known to the investigation panel. However, these flaws did not vitiate the contested decision as they were cured in the process that followed. The findings of the fact-finding investigation report and the accompanying documents justified the decision to initiate formal...
The Tribunal is satisfied that since the Post was advertised well before the expiry of the roster on which the successful candidate’s name was included, the successful candidate was eligible to be selected from the roster andthe decision to select him from the roster was, hence, proper. The Tribunal finds that as a roster candidate the Applicant should have been informed by the hiring manager within 14 days after the selection decision was made in writing. The Tribunal finds that even in the absence of a clearly stated timeframe for notifying applicants who have been eliminated prior to the...
The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary’s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant...
The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...
