51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested a decision that took place in late 2010, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is almost nine years later. The record showed the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 30 January 2020, and she received a response on 31 January 2020, informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s...

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c).; The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c). The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...

Upon review of the record, the Tribunal finds that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing which would give rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal of his temporary appointment. The erroneous approval by the OIC of Mission Support cannot be understood to create a legitimate expectation of the renewal. There was maladministration in terms of delay in communicating the error to the Applicant and the Respondent has provided compensation to the Applicant in that respect. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the Administration¡¯s finding that there were no...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the UNDT was not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been selected by a Secretariat review body, which is a requirement under sec 2.1 of ST/SGB/2011/9. The Tribunal held that this was rational and consistent with General Assembly resolution 65/247 that for continuing appointments with the Secretariat, the requisite review be done by a Secretarit review body rather than other specialized review bodies. This condition was not satisfied in the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the impugned decision not to grant the Applicant the continuing appointment was correct. The application was thus dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the complaint about the long period it took for the Applicant to be paid and the dispute over the amount of the pension paid to him were beyond the scope of the application since they were not subjected to management evaluation as required by art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). The Tribunal found that the Administration had proper legal grounds for refusing to issue the separation notification to the UNJSPF in accordance with staff rule 3.18(c)(ii), ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members) and ST/AI/155/Rev.2 as...

The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.

The information in the documents on record pointed to purely work-related disagreements between the Applicant and her supervisor. The Tribunal rejected the complaint that UNICEF¡¯s Deputy Executive Director, Management (DED/M) did not take into consideration the facts in their entirety and misunderstood her statements when conducting the management evaluation. The Tribunal agreed with the finding that there was no evidence of abuse of authority or deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the Applicant¡¯s supervisor. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not raise any impropriety...

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.