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...
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.
The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant’s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...
The UNDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation of the contested decision. The UNDT found that the Applicant’s communications with the Human Resources Management Section of the United Nations Office in Vienna in July 2012 did not amount to a request for management evaluation, and even if they were accepted as such a request, it would have been out of time by approximately three months.
Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not timely submit his request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to identify in clear and precise terms specific administrative decision(s), actions or omissions, including their dates. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae.
