The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA’s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant’s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.
In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant’s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.
Applying either evidentiary...
The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.
The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the 麻豆APP and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.
Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...
Receivability
The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.
First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with UNDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.
Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...
Applicant’s request for anonymization
The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-UNAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the“harm this case has caused” him and the “sensitive information” referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant’s motion was denied.
Receivability
The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and the reasons provided by the Respondent for not selecting the Applicant and concluded that based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Respondent’s decision not to select him cannot be faulted as being unfair. The Applicant did not have the CIPS level 2 certification that was a mandatory requirement for the position, and he did not prove that he had two years of progressive experience in procurement management.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s suggestion in his submissions that the selection panel ought not to have relied only on his...
Receivability
The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.
Merits
The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...
Receivability
The Applicant correctly submitted that he was not contesting the promulgation of the Mobility AI. It was clear from the content of the application that he did not challenge the existence of the Mobility AI as a regulatory decision of the Secretary-General affecting all staff members. Instead, he was contesting the impact of what he perceived as a specific decision made after he accepted the offer of appointment, i.e., that the Mobility AI would be a term of his employment contract. The Tribunal thus found the application receivable.
Merits
The Tribunal established that the Applicant...
Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...
The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the UNICEF Field Office (“CFO”) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, “Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter”. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.
The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...
