51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the established time limit. Authority of the Tribunal to waive the deadlines for management evaluation: The Appeals Tribunal held in several judgments that pursuant to article 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive the deadline for management evaluation, including where exceptional circumstances may have prevented the staff member from complying with the deadline. Authority of the Secretary-General to waive the...

The procedures set out in ST/AI/2002/3 on the performance appraisal system were not complied with. While section 8.3 requires that as soon as a performance shortcoming is identified, the first reporting officer should discuss the situation with the staff member and take steps in consultation with him/her to rectify the situation, in the present case the Applicant received the rating ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± without being informed through the performance appraisal system of his shortcomings and thus without being given the opportunity to improve his performance. Since the...

When the Administration takes a decision which confirms an initial decision, the time limit to contest the decision starts to run from the date of the initial decision. In the case at hand, while the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 2 November 2009, he only requested management evaluation of this decision on 31 March 2010. He thus failed 51ÁÔÆæ the established time limit to request management evaluation. When a staff member wishes to contest a decision which, in his view, is unlawful because of the incompetence of the body which took the decision, he/she should...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment of limited duration carried no expectancy of renewal and that there were no countervailing circumstances which could have created such expectancy. It also found that the reason for non-renewal, namely the negative impact that allegations then made against the Applicant in the local media could have on the Organization, was supported by the facts and that the non-renewal decision therefore constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion. Scope of discretion of the Secretary-General in non-renewal cases: It is within the...

The Applicant made good faith efforts 51ÁÔÆæ his financial disclosure obligations for 2005. The Secretary-General failed to take into account the various mitigating factors in favour of the Applicant when determining the sanction against him. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was far more excessive than was necessary for obtaining the desired purposes of the financial disclosure program. The appropriate disciplinary measure in the present case should be a reprimand.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the present application was time-barred as it was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt by the Applicant of the management evaluation. The Applicant submitted that the filing of the present application was delayed due to exceptional circumstances, namely his attempts to resolve the matter informally, including with the assistance of OSLA. The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than four months after the expiration of the relevant time period. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant¡¯s informal discussions with the...

UNDT held that, in light of Order No. 62 (NY/2010) and the subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there was no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. UNDT closed the case without a determination of its merits.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.