The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the Applicant lacked legal standing, and that the second part of the application, while receivable, was unfounded, since the Secretary-General, who has the duty to facilitate the holding of the elections to the UNSCP, had no power, whatsoever, to interfere in the actual conduct and results of the elections.
The UNDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The UNDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-UNAT-345, MEU’s belated...
Binding force of UNAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the “Judgment” section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the...
Binding force of UNAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the “Judgment” section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the...
No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant’s arguments...
The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent’s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...
The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...
The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.
Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...
After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...
