The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.
The Applicant’s post termination correspondence seeking to clarify what his terminal benefits would be, his eventual receipt of a statement of payments on 20 September 2021 and the filing of a new MER on 27 October 2021 reiterating the points previously made and decided on by the MEU did not re-set the time for the filing of the application. The Applicant waited approximately seven months after receiving the June 2021 MEU response, which addressed his submissions about entitlement to termination indemnity, before filing the application. The application was therefore outside the permitted 90...
Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.
The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA’s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant’s testimony is not reliable.
With reference to the Tribunal’s...
A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a “staff member”. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.
The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...
The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.
The Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.
The Notice and its placement in the Applicant’s personnel file Noting that the decision at issue is a written reprimand imposed to address a staff member’s unsatisfactory conduct following an investigation of an altercation, the Tribunal considers that the decision at issue constitutes an administrative measure under sec. 2.1(d) of ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The fact that a reprimand is not a disciplinary measure “does not mean that a reprimand does not have legal consequences, which are to the detriment of its addressee, especially...
Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based have been established There is evidence that the Applicant improperly interfered with the recruitment exercise for the position of LSA Sulaymaniyah. Also, the Applicant does not dispute the fact that he did not report potential misconduct on the part of his supervisor. Accordingly, the Administration has established to the requisite standard of proof the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based. Whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct The Administration correctly determined that:
a. By moving Mr. D...
