Given that the Tribunal already adjudicated the Applicant’s claim, finding it not receivable ratione personae for lack of standing, the present application is not receivable. The Secretary-General’s response to a request for management evaluation is not an appealable administrative decision.
The Tribunal recalls that there is a procedure to challenge administrative decisions which a staff member deems to be in violation of his or her contractual rights. The Applicant, who is represented by professional counsel, cannot bypass the applicable procedures to indirectly introduce decisions, which were not timely challenged, into these proceedings to argue that they form part of a pattern of abuse against her. To allow this tactic would result in an upset of the administrative legal order of the Organization. The Tribunal notes that Applicant disagrees with UNICEF’s evaluation of her...
The present matter can be determined on a priority basis without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply as provided for in art. 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. There is no nexus between the Applicant’s former employment and the contested decision. Accordingly, the Applicant does not have standing and the application is not receivable ratione personae. Having filed the application pending the response of the management evaluation and prior to the expiry of the relevant response period, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the matter at issue. The...
UNDT held that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. UNDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. UNDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...
UNDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.
UNDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. UNDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. UNDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. UNDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...
The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant’s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant’s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s...
The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...
The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and UNICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.
The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one’s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the 麻豆APP Appeals Tribunal (“UNAT”) in Haq and Kane 2019-UNAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...
