Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.
Lateral reassignment: The Tribunal held that the decision to laterally transfer the Applicant was lawful as it fulfilled the conditions for such a transfer as set out in Rees. The new post was at the staff member’s grade; the responsibilities involved corresponded to his level; the functions to be performed were commensurate with the Applicant’s competence and skills and the Applicant had substantial experience in the field. Reasons for the contested decision: The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s complaints about the lack of or the adequacy of reasons for the decision were unsubstantiated...
The Tribunal determined that the matter put to it is the filling of a P-3 translator vacancy in RTS, UNOG, by a lateral transfer, under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, instead of through a competitive selection process, which would have then required the advertisement of a vacancy announcement for the concerned post on different grounds his non-selection for the post of Chief, Russian Translation Unit, UNON. This is a decision having direct effects on the Applicant’s rights, hence appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that filling a vacancy through a lateral transfer of a staff member...
The Tribunal noted that: (a) there was no female member in the assessment panel, (b) the panel’s evaluation of the candidates was substantially modified between its adoption by all three panel members and its scrutiny by the competent Central Review Committee (“CRC”), (c) the Hiring Manager failed to transmit his final recommendation to the decision-maker; instead the CRC Secretariat forwarded the selection record (with only one recommended candidate) to the decision-maker, and (d) the Applicant was not notified of his non-selection within the prescribed 14 days of the decision; rather, he...
Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant’s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...
UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner’s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members’ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...
UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner’s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members’ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...
The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the UNDT Statute...
Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.
