Â鶹APP

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not derive negative consequences from the putative error in the EOD date.

The Applicant failed to abide by several orders and did not respond to attempts from the Registry to contact him. Ther Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that, on 12 January 2018, the Deputy Director of the UNOPS People and Change Group, in a telephone call, informed unequivocally the Applicant of the contested decision. The Applicant claimed that he was only officially made aware of his non-selection for the post when a formal announcement was made on 1 March 2018, which stated that another candidate had been chosen for the position. The Tribunal found that this claim was ill-founded, as a verbal unequivocal communication is sufficient for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) (see Auda 2017-UNAT-746). The Tribunal considered...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. It resulted from the file that, on 24 November 2017, the Applicant received a letter indicating that she had not been matched against any post in the newly planned structure of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC). This letter clearly stated that ¡°all posts in the current WSSCC structure [were] being abolished with effect [close of business] 31 March 2018¡±, that her appointment would not be renewed when it expires on 31 March 2018 and she would be separated from service. The Tribunal considered that the...

The Respondent has minimally shown that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration. The Applicant was lawfully not selected for the Post, as her test result was below the passing score. The requirements the written test directly related to the responsibilities of the contested position. There was no indication of any alterations or discrepancies with the marking methodology. The Organization does not have a promotion system where managers are obligated to develop and train supervisees for promotion opportunities and assist them in career growth and, therefore, job applicants have no...

Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant¡¯s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal¡¯s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration¡¯s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

The Tribunal noted that the allegations of poor behaviour and the fact that those behaviours undermined the Applicant¡¯s capacity to discharge the responsibilities assigned to him in an effective manner were not included in his performance evaluations. The fact that the allegations later became the subject of the email to the USGs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Service and formed the basis for the decision to reassign the Applicant to another office showed that there was no transparency on the part of the Respondent in the matter. The Tribunal also...

By not seeking the Medical Director¡¯s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant¡¯s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with UNHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that UNHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant¡¯s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of ¡°successfully meets expectations¡±. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant¡¯s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...