±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that at the earliest, the deadline to request management evaluation started to run on 22 August 2019 and expired on 21 October 2019. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant¡¯s 18 October 2019 request for management evaluation was timely and that her application was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further held that the decision to pay the Applicant¡¯s repatriation grant at the single rate was in accordance with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Policy as well as Annex IV to the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

Non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment due to the lack of funding The proffered reason for the non-renewal is supported by evidence. The post encumbered by the Applicant was funded by funds received under service level agreements, and the Applicant¡¯s salary in 2016-19 were fully covered by a specific service level agreement, whose contributions were reduced to the extent that they were insufficient to cover the Applicant¡¯s salary. The Applicant questioned why other staff members were not affected by the reduction of funding, but none of the other staff members¡¯ salary was fully...

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

The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant¡¯s status as ¡°divorced¡±, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.

The Tribunal has the power to interpret and identify the ¡°contested administrative decision¡± at stake, even if the party or parties have failed to do so. The Applicant was placed on SLWOP following her expulsion from Pakistan, the host country, due to her failure to timely submit the required documents for the renewal of her accreditation card. The Applicant, as an international staff member, should have known that a valid visa and accreditation card were conditions sine qua non for her to stay in Pakistan and be able to perform her professional duties. Since these conditions were not met and...

In plain English, the term ¡°net base salary¡±, does not have any meaning on its own, and no authoritative definition is found in the relevant legal framework or the employment contract. The purpose of post adjustment is to ensure equity in purchasing power of staff members across duty stations. Net base salary represents the minimum, or floor remuneration payable, is defined as gross base salary minus staff assessment, and does not include post adjustment.

The Tribunal found that Administration properly calculated the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlements and that the procedure to terminate her appointment for health reasons was properly followed. The Tribunal found that as the Applicant had been ¡°re-employed¡± on the fixed-term contract, staff rule 4.17 prevented the Applicant from claiming that she had completed more than three years of continuous service based on her previous service under the temporary appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlement of three months on full salary and three months on half salary was calculated...

Although the Organization¡¯s payment of the Applicant¡¯s final entitlements into the wrong bank account was a serious irregularity, the Tribunal concluded that the irregularity did not obliterate the fact that the Organization discharged its final payment obligation toward the Applicant because the payment was made into the Applicant¡¯s account on record. This mistake did not cause financial damage to the Applicant but rather resulted in a reduction of his personal liabilities. Further, the Applicant had had several opportunities to authorize the return of the funds to the Organization, and thus...