51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant¡¯s post and proceeded with the downsizing. UNDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require UNOCI to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment, neither did it alter UNOCI¡¯s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance...

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

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.

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...

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...

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

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 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 Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions is the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-UNAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-UNAT-; 684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration.; The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions was the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-UNAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-UNAT-684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration. The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...