51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The UNAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.

Regarding the disciplinary measure, the UNAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian...

The UNAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

The UNAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member¡¯s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant¡¯s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.