Â鶹APP

The Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. With regard to ratione temporis, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 31 May 2019. She then ought to have requested management evaluation by 30 July 2019. She however, submitted her request on 30 December 2019, five months late, and outside the 60-day period. The Tribunal thus held that her request for management evaluation was time-barred and therefore, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not competent to...

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant¡¯s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal¡¯s earlier final finding on the matter, it...

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

The facts of the case amounted to two decisions being challenged: the decision of the RSCE to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for education grant for his son for the 2019-2020 academic year, in total or prorated, and the Head of Mission¡¯s refusal to grant the Applicant an exception under staff rule 12.3(b). The Applicant only requested management evaluation of the RSCE decision. To the extent that the Applicant contested the decision of the Head of Mission, the application was not receivable since the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of that decision. The Applicant did not...

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1. They were timely, having been filed within the applicable deadline, following a properly requested management evaluation. 2. An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips for the month of February 2018. 3. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s claim that the administrative discretion is a criterion for determining receivability of an application...

The Applicant¡¯s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

The Applicant did not advance any exception to the rule that General Assembly resolutions may not be amenable to judicial review by the Tribunal. Those exceptions arise where the Secretary-General is mandated to interpret an ambiguous regulatory decision, to comply with procedures or where the implementation of the resolution involves application of a criteria. In the instant case, the Secretary-General¡¯s role in implementation of the resolution to abolish the P-4 Engineering position was mechanical and was not reviewable . In that regard, the Respondent was correct that that limb of the...