51³Ô¹Ï

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 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.

The UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s determination of the former staff member’s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the UNRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant’s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant’s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration’s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...