Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, UNAT held that UNDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. UNAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin UNDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in UNDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. UNAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

UNAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before UNDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, UNAT held that there was no fault in the UNDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT committed any error...

UNAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. UNAT held, in agreement with the UNDT¡¯s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager¡¯s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim was fully and fairly considered by UNDT. UNAT found no fault in UNDT¡¯s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant¡¯s right...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawfully terminated in accordance with the amended terms of her appointment and that her appeal had no merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to meet the burden of proof of the alleged improper motivation for the decision. UNAT noted that UNFCCC advertised nine fixed-term positions at the G-5 level, but that the Appellant did not apply for any of them, her aim being to secure a P-2 level position. UNAT found no fault in UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had no duty to seek a suitable position for the Applicant beyond the...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the relevant rules were followed and found that the Applicant failed to show evidence that the decision was based on extraneous factors. It concluded that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration and rejected the application. Written test: Where an Applicant successfully passed an anonymous written test, but is subsequently eliminated at the stage of the interview, the question of who should have designed and corrected the written test in a selection process is not determinant for the outcome of the selection process vis-¨¤-vis the Applicant. Any...

The Tribunal noted that the relinquishment of the Applicant¡¯s post was not imposed upon her by the Administration. It occurred at her own initiative and of her free will. It found that the termination decision was lawful and rejected the application. Termination of an FTA: The FTA of a staff member who signed an agreement relinquishing the lien on his/her regular post and, hence, who has no post to return to, can be terminated on the basis of that agreement. The Administration has no duty to make good faith efforts to place that staff member against a suitable post beyond the terms of the...

Management evaluation: the requirement of filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an application before the Tribunal has been invariably upheld by the Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to either waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation with the MEU or make any exception to it; therefore, the Tribunal is incompetent to review decisions which have not been subjected to management evaluation. Technical bodies: as per staff rule 11.2(b), technical bodies are determined by the Secretary-General. Absent such determination...

Since the receivability of an application is a question of law, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to make use of art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, and to decide on the application by way of summary judgment, without transmitting it to the Respondent. Upon taking up her functions as a Programme Management Officer at UNFCCC on 8 November 2012, the Applicant knew about her step in grade, as per her offer of appointment of 24 September 2012. Since the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation against the determination of her step upon recruitment with UNFCCC four years...

Due diligence: A delay in payment of an entitlement under the Staff Rules and Regulations can constitute a violation of a general principle of due diligence and good faith towards staff members, enshrined in the Charter of the Â鶹APP, which is a structural principle of good management practice. Undue delay: In order to assess whether a delay in payment of an entitlement is undue, the Tribunal will look into the time payment would have taken had normal workflows been respected. A delay of eleven months in payment of an entitlement is undue and may warrant compensation provided the...