±¬ÁÏÍø

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c).; The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...

The Applicant¡¯s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant¡¯s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The required facts for a finding of sexual exploitation were not proven clearly, or at all, such that a decision to impose the sanction of separation could have been justified. There was also a failure to consider relevant evidence as to a prior courtship relationship between the parties that if considered would have shed further doubt on whether the Complainant was exploited. There was no factual basis for the investigators and the Respondent to have found that there was a relationship of trust that could have been abused. The Complainant was not a beneficiary of assistance from the United...

Receivability The Tribunal considered that the Applicant was not challenging individual non-selection decisions directly but rather challenged the Administration¡¯s alleged failure to give her priority consideration for vacant posts before terminating her fixed-term appointment, which is required under staff rule 9.6(e) (see Timothy). Therefore, the Tribunal found the application receivable and examined the merits of the case. Restructuring process At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant worked as Humanitarian Affairs Officer (HAO) at the P-4 level. The Tribunal noted that, in OCHA...

The Applicant remains on special leave with full pay at the time of the judgment. The decision to terminate his appointment remains suspended and has no impact on his terms of appointment, the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The management evaluation rescinds the 25 September 2019 decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint of abuse of authority. Therefore, in application of Crotty, the Applicant¡¯s request for an order directing ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF to comply with its obligations with respect to the complaint is not receivable. The Tribunal notes that as the 25 September 2019 decision was rescinded, further actions or inactions taken following the 7 November 2019 decision constitute fresh administrative decisions, actual or implied. Therefore, in application of art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Applicant must...

Comments and communications of staff representatives do not have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of an individual staff member. There is no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to not be subject to comments from staff representatives. There is also no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to compel the Administration to issue communications in this regard. The Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the decisions or implied decisions identified in the application within the statutory 60-day deadline

The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...

It was reasonable for the responsible official to determine that the status and management of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF is a legitimate subject of concern to staff at large and therefore comments made by staff representatives about the management of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF concern work-related issues. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that staff rule 8.1(f) entitles staff representative bodies to effective participation in identifying, examining and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies. It also was reasonable for the...

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...