51ÁÔÆæ

It follows from the case record that the reasons for rejecting the Applicant¡¯s return-to-work plan on 13 May 2019 were only presented to the Applicant in the Respondent¡¯s reply submitted by Counsel for the Respondent. This was evidently a procedural error. The scope of this irregularity was exacerbated by the statutory requirement of sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3, which demands ¡°the manager ¡­ to establish that the requested accommodations represent a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace¡± (italics added). The Applicant¡¯s manager was not Counsel for the Respondent before the Dispute...

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the UN, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.

UNDT noted that the Applicant did not assert any right acquired in terms of his previous contract of employment with the Organization. UNDT held that there was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. UNDT held that the Applicant did not have standing and that the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The facts of the case amounted to two decisions being challenged: the decision of the RSCE to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for education grant for his son for the 2019-2020 academic year, in total or prorated, and the Head of Mission¡¯s refusal to grant the Applicant an exception under staff rule 12.3(b). The Applicant only requested management evaluation of the RSCE decision. To the extent that the Applicant contested the decision of the Head of Mission, the application was not receivable since the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of that decision. The Applicant did not...

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1. They were timely, having been filed within the applicable deadline, following a properly requested management evaluation. 2. An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips for the month of February 2018. 3. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s claim that the administrative discretion is a criterion for determining receivability of an application...

The Applicant¡¯s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

The Applicant did not advance any exception to the rule that General Assembly resolutions may not be amenable to judicial review by the Tribunal. Those exceptions arise where the Secretary-General is mandated to interpret an ambiguous regulatory decision, 51ÁÔÆæ procedures or where the implementation of the resolution involves application of a criteria. In the instant case, the Secretary-General¡¯s role in implementation of the resolution to abolish the P-4 Engineering position was mechanical and was not reviewable . In that regard, the Respondent was correct that that limb of the...