51ÁÔÆæ

Temporary reassignment: The characteristic of a temporary reassignment is its limited duration. From the outset, it is clear that it has an expiration date and that, unless renewed by a subsequent discretionary decision, it will come to an end naturally on the date specified for this purpose. The natural outcome of a temporary assignment is the staff member¡¯s return to his/her original duties. Accordingly, a staff member on temporary reassignment has no entitlement or legal expectancy to have such reassignment extended. The decision not to extend a temporary reassignment is within the...

The Respondent withdrew from the impugned decision to change the Applicant¡¯s functional title from Team Assistant to Language Assistant. Accordingly, the claim was moot at the time of the filing of the application and therefore not receivable. With respect to the decision to remove the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the Litani magazine the Tribunal found that this claim was not the subject of management evaluation and therefore not receivability. With respect to the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the impugned decision entailed a change in the Applicant¡¯s place, her...

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a communication conveying discontent to management will amount to a management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the competent authority, which is specifically empowered to look into a contested decision to evaluate and consider whether it has been made pursuant to the administrative issuances of the...

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Tribunal found that UNMISS was incorrect when it restricted applicants to the TJO to staff already employed by UNMISS since the Applicant was an internal candidate. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for the TJO was unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post. The Tribunal found the application receivable and that the contested decision not to find the Applicant eligible for the TJO and the related decision to continue the selection process were unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to a full...

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

The UNDT found that the Administration¡¯s failure to timey conclude its investigation was an act of omission and an implied administrative decision receivable by the UNDT. The personal crisis of one investigator did not account for the entire three years nor justify the Administration¡¯s failure to take corrective measures to control the delay. The excessive delay breached fairness and the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Further, the Administrations¡¯ failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s multiple reasonable follow up queries spanning three years constituted a breach of duty owed the Applicant...

The main issue for determination in this matter is whether the advertised job opening was a ¡°recruitment from roster¡± position, thus barring the Applicant from competing for it. If it was not, a resulting issue to examine would be what remedies, if any, the Applicant is entitled to. The Tribunal noted that in the case at hand, nothing in the vacancy announcement indicated that only candidates from the language or any other roster for that matter were eligible to apply. The Tribunal found that the Organization cannot be permitted to post vacancy announcements and use eligibility requirements...

The decision the Applicant seeks to impugn cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal because the Applicant did not yet request management evaluation. Without considering whether the impugned decision is an administrative decision within the definition of art. 2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is thus not receivable ratione materiae. Further, if the Applicant is seeking an extension of time, by waiver or suspension, to file a request for management evaluation of the decision in respect of her...