±¬ÁÏÍø

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration¡¯s refusal to grant a permanent...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT order requesting information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration¡¯s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant¡¯s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has complied with every aspect of the regulatory framework. Specifically, regarding the complaint that the Applicant was not provided with details of the allegations that led to the investigation, there is no requirement for such disclosure when informing a staff member that they will be placed on leave with pay at the initial stage of an investigation. This differs from the circumstances where the decision being made is placement on leave without pay. There is no indication that the Respondent acted other than in full compliance with the regulatory...

Regarding the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel, despite an alleged procedural irregularity, the Applicant successfully passed a competency-based interview and was recommended for the Post. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel affected her right to full and fair consideration. Regarding the failure to consult with the hiring manager in making the selection decision, the Applicant fails to explain how the failure to consult with the hiring manager adversely affected her right to full...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant¡¯s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent¡¯s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

The Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore held that the presumption of...

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed ¡°after¡± she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR¡¯s comments in relation to the Applicant¡¯s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three ¡°off the record¡± emails with the journalist and it was the...

The decision to change the Applicant¡¯s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant¡¯s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant¡¯s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant¡¯s reporting officers falls under...

The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one¡¯s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (¡°±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡±) in Haq and Kane 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...

The ASG/OIOS was appointed as OiC by the previous USG/OIOS pending the appointment of a new head of entity. The mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term does not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid and there is no allegation or evidence that subdelegations to the ASG/OIOS as OiC/OIOS were withdrawn or modified by the new USG/OIOS. Rather, in the contested decision, the ASG/OIOS used his title as OiC/OIOS. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the contested decision was made by the authorized responsible official. While the OiC/OIOS¡¯s decision does not refer to the specific...

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant¡¯s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant¡¯s grievances about the selection process were not...

The interview questions were reasonable and that the panel¡¯s report was comprehensive, well-structured and thorough, and with reference to Sanwidi, the decision not to recommend the Applicant was therefore not ¡°absurd or perverse¡± It is uncontested that the Applicant passed the written test, which was administered by the technical panel, whose composition he is now challenging. Accordingly, this composition evidently did not result in any concrete negative consequence(s) for the Applicant in the challenged selection process, but as a general matter, the Tribunal cannot exclude that a situation...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...

Appeals dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision...