51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant¡¯s appeal against her own selection for the TJO is not receivable because it is time-barred under staff rule 11.2(c). As no reasonable remedy would be available for the Tribunal to rectify the situation to the relevant applicant¡¯s advantage, the appeal would only be of speculative interest. In the present case, the Applicant basically appeals against herself being selected for and appointed to a job, which is evidently an administrative decision to her advantage. Consequently, the Applicant¡¯s appeal of the decision to recruit her against the TJO is not receivable as it does not...

The Applicant did not show that the decision to not renew his appointment was tainted by improper motive or bias, or that the process leading up to the decision to abolish the post he encumbered was irregular or improper. The Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that the Mission acted appropriately under the circumstances before it.

Having proposed closure of the Kamina site to the General Assembly and the corollary budgetary reductions, the Respondent proceeded with the implementation of his proposal. The natural consequence of this process was that the Applicant was left with no tasks to perform. The decision did not amount to a de facto termination by cutting; short the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The appointment continued until the expiration date on 30 June 2019 but was not renewed due to the abolition of the post. There was nothing in the parties¡¯ submissions to show that the decision was perverse or tainted so as to...

Having proposed closure of the Kisangani site to the General Assembly and the corollary budgetary reductions, the Respondent proceeded with the implementation of his proposal. Rather than reduce the term of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, the Respondent opted instead to lighten the footprint in the Kisangani site by having those; whose services were no longer necessary to go home but without it affecting their benefits or entitlements. The natural consequence of this process was that the Applicant was left with no tasks to perform. While this may have been an unorthodox arrangement, nothing in...

Receivability The Tribunal considered that the Applicant was not challenging individual non-selection decisions directly but rather challenged the Administration¡¯s alleged failure to give her priority consideration for vacant posts before terminating her fixed-term appointment, which is required under staff rule 9.6(e) (see Timothy). Therefore, the Tribunal found the application receivable and examined the merits of the case. Restructuring process At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant worked as Humanitarian Affairs Officer (HAO) at the P-4 level. The Tribunal noted that, in OCHA...

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 Tribunal found that the post encumbered by the Applicant was abolished due to a restructuring exercise in UNAKRT linked to budgetary restrictions and the implementation of Umoja, which rendered the Applicant¡¯s position redundant. The Tribunal noted that the Organization is not bound to initiate a formal consultation process with a staff member before deciding to abolish his/her post. In any event, consultation is not equivalent to negotiation, and it is not necessary for the Administration to secure consent or agreement of the consulted party. The Tribunal found that the Organization did...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated...

The legal issue for determination in the present case is whether UNOPS was under an obligation to extend a fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing a staff member to utilize his or her sick leave entitlement. The answer is negative, as the Tribunal found that there was no evidence in the case file to conclude that the legal framework of UNOPS included such obligation. Neither Staff rule 6.2(a) nor UNOPS Operational Directive OD.PCG.2017.01 on Human Resources, Ethics and Culture (in effect as of 15 August 2017) contain any obligation for the Administration to extend a staff...

The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that UNOPS Administration approved the Applicant¡¯s sick leave. Therefore, given that the Applicant was separated from service effective 31 March 2018 and that no sick leave beyond that date had been approved by the UNOPS Administration, the Tribunal found that there was no sick leave to ¡°terminate or retract¡± as claimed by the Applicant. Having said the above, the Tribunal found that the effective content of the challenged decision communicated to the Applicant on 5 April 2018 concerned the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment for the sole...