51ÁÔÆæ

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 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 alleged lack of decision

The Tribunal noted that if a claim is submitted timely, the Administration opens the case under the framework of Appendix D, which remains open as compensation may be awarded any time after the original incident.

The Tribunal referred to art. 2 entitled ¡°Principles of award¡± of the pre-2017 Appendix D, applicable at the time the claim was submitted, and found that for a compensation to be paid or a benefit to be granted under Appendix D, a staff member must make a specific request such as the reimbursement of medical expenses or the payment of compensation for...

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...

Whether the Applicant is entitled to maternity leave under staff rule 6.3(a)

While the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations is not a treaty, art. 31.1 of the VCLT sets forth generally accepted rules for interpreting an international document, which refers to interpretation according to the ¡°ordinary meaning¡± of the terms ¡°in their context and in the light of its object and purpose¡± (see, e.g., UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 942, Merani (1999), para. VII; Avognon et al. UNDT/2020/151, para. 50; Andreeva et al. UNDT/2020/122, para. 64; Applicant UNDT/2021/165, para. 37).

Based on the applicable legal framework, the Administration can determine the status of eligibility of staff members in connection with dependency entitlements, which include dependent child allowance, and proceed to recover any amounts when a staff members fail 51ÁÔÆæ their relevant obligations.

Pursuant to Annex III of ST/IC/2020/12, for a child of a staff member who is not the custodial parent or who has joint custody of the child, which is the case of the Applicant, the amount of payment to be eligible for a child dependency allowance should be at least the amount of the court...

Accoding to the hiring manager, he concluded that the Applicant id not meet one of the minimum requirements for the position and thus, lawfully not considered further in the selection process. This requirement was "experience in leading large teams", which the hiring manager defined as "supervising at least 10 employees".

The Tribunal found that the process of advertising and setting out the criteria for selection was done lawfully. However, it also found that there was evidence of an unjust process that failed to provide a fair chance to job applicants like the Applicant because it failed to...

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.