51ÁÔÆæ

Since the Applicant remains on special leave with full pay pending management evaluation at the time of the judgment, the termination decision remains suspended and has not yielded effects on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The application is therefore not receivable. The action or inaction of the Administration to find an alternative post for the Applicant after he was first placed on special leave with full pay is not receivable because the Applicant did not include this ground in his request for management evaluation.

Initial assessment of roster candidates The Applicant raised several questions relating to the initial assessment process, which the Tribunal reviewed in turn. The Tribunal noted that under sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, the Administration has broad discretion on how to assess shortlisted candidates. While the OHRM Guidelines encourage hiring managers to interview roster candidates in a less formal setting, that is not the only way to assess roster candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the administration of a written assessment and an informal interview for the purpose of a roster...

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

UNDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. UNDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

Considering that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection, the Administration can include more restrictive and yet reasonable criteria in the job opening for the evaluation of candidates. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal finds that the assessment was conducted properly and that the Applicant¡¯s qualifications were fully and fairly considered in accordance with relevant law. As the Applicant was not substantially equal or superior to those of competing male candidates, her non-selection did not violate ST/AI/1999/9.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant acted diligently with respect to the filing of his request for management evaluation and met the deadlines set forth by the MEU. This is particularly relevant as the reason for the elapsed time to file such request was the attempt at informal resolution of the dispute under the auspices of the UNOMS. The application is receivable ratione materiae. As the parties entered mediation before the Applicant¡¯s filing of a request for management evaluation, the applicable provision for the calculation of the 90-day deadline to file an application is art. 8.1...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...

The Applicant¡¯s attempt to hug V01 did not on its own qualify as an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favour or verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature or any other behaviour of a sexual nature. The Applicant¡¯s asking for V01¡¯s room number on multiple occasions did not constitute sexual harassment. The facts did not establish sexual harassment as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 and as interpreted in various jurisprudence. The Respondent¡¯s investigations were skewed toward finding a case for sexual harassment regardless of the inadequacy of evidence to substantiate the...

In the absence of any evidence of ongoing mediation efforts or request for suspension of deadline to file an application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant, having filed his application outside of the statutory deadline. In any event, given that the contested administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 3 April 2019, the request for management evaluation of 8 September 2019 would have missed the 60-day deadline set in staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation. Given that settlement discussions are confidential in nature, it is the parties¡¯ responsibility to...