Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. UNAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and the party applying for revision. UNAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the UN Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the UNJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

The UNDT found that, although the JO was canceled and re-issued, there were still outstanding relief claims for adjudication, therefore, the application was not moot. The UNDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for removal of the Representative of the Secretary-General (¡°RSG¡±) for the Investments of the UNJSPF from the recruitment process, finding that this request pertained to the re-issued job opening. The UNDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request to refer the case for accountability and his claims for legal costs and moral damages. The application was dismissed.

The UNDT found that the Applicant chose not to submit her candidacy for this P-5 vacancy. Accordingly, the outcome of the selection process had no direct legal effect on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked standing to contest the selection process. The application was therefore dismissed.

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...

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...

The Tribunal held that there is an appropriate correlation between the rating and the explanation as, in her comments, the FRO explicitly provides the factual bases for the negative performance rating. The Applicant never submitted a written statement to object against the performance rating and therefore the rating stands unchallenged. The Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to prove that UNJSPF did not act fairly, justly or transparently. The Tribunal held that it follows from the Applicant¡¯s self-appraisal that she herself indicated that she had received guidance, feedback and training...

The challenge to the contested decision is receivable. The cancellation of JO for the Post was not one of a series of preliminary steps leading to the final administrative decision. Rather, the Administration decided to abolish and reclassify the Post and therefore cancelled the JO in question. Therefore, this was a final administrative decision with regard to the Post and therefore can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The Applicant alleges that a restructuring exercise is a pretext for the cancellation of JO and it was a continued retaliatory act against her, but there is no evidence to conclude...

It was reasonable for the responsible official to determine that the status and management of the UNJSPF is a legitimate subject of concern to staff at large and therefore comments made by staff representatives about the management of UNJSPF concern work-related issues. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that staff rule 8.1(f) entitles staff representative bodies to effective participation in identifying, examining and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies. It also was reasonable for the...

The application is moot as the underlying contested decision in this case has been reversed.