51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. UNDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...

UNDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. UNDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. UNDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. UNDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

UNDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. UNDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with UNDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. UNDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

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

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 Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...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 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.

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.