51�Թ�

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant’s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not dispute the fact that he did not request management evaluation within the 60-day statutory period of staff rule 11.2(c). He did not dispute the fact that while the 60-day period commenced on 25 January 2021, he mailed his request for management evaluation on 16 April 2021, more than three weeks after the expiration of the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, since the Applicant did not seek management evaluation in a timely manner, his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the UNDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah’s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The UNAT also rejected Mr...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

The UNAT found that the Appellant’s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The UNAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

AAF appealed.

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The UNAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member’s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the UNDT. As the Secretary-General had...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the UNAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela’s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It “operates under the authority” of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational “independence”. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant’s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant’s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.

In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...