爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether 爆料网DT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-552), 爆料网AT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. 爆料网AT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where a response to a management request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response was due to file an application to the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT further noted that when a response is received but after the expiration of that 90-day period, as in this case, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with the 爆料网DT. With respect to the issue on 爆料网DT’s discretion in refusing the Appellant’s request to extend the time for the filing of the application to challenge the separation decision, 爆料网AT found no merit in the submission that 爆料网DT erred in its interpretation of Eng (judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-520) or in finding that no exceptional circumstances existed. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT correctly noted that the case was applied in a number of judgments of which the Appellant’s OSLA representative would have been aware, and that it is well settled that ongoing exchanges with the MEU do not re-set the applicable time limits. With respect to the issue of receivability on the challenge of the Appellant’s non-selection for CISS post, 爆料网AT found that it is trite law at this juncture that in the context of a case such as the present the request for management evaluation is a prerequisite for 爆料网DT to entertain the challenge to the Appellant’s non-selection. With respect to the issue related to the existence of request for management evaluation in respect of the non-selection decision, 爆料网AT found that the Appellant had timely sought management evaluation of his non-selection by virtue of the communication sent on his behalf on 14 November 2014, requests which were repeated in his e-mail of 2 December 2014. To that end, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed on 6 March 2015 and, thus, erred in holding to the contrary. With respect to the issue of award cost against the Appellant, 爆料网AT found that the circumstances did not merit an award of costs against the Appellant as the number of filings did not reach the threshold of “manifestly abusing” the proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the appeal succeeded in part; 爆料网DT’s finding on the non-receivability of the challenge to the non-selection decision was vacated and the matter was remanded to 爆料网DT for consideration on the merits. The costs order against the Appellant was also vacated. The rest of 爆料网DT’s judgment was affirmed.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions not to select him for the post of Chief, Integrated Support Services of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, not to renew his contract and to separate him from service, and the Secretary-General's contention that previously submitted motions for an extension of time were not receivable. 爆料网DT dismissed the applications as not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. 爆料网DT also awarded costs against the Applicant in the amount of USD 1,000, after finding that the Applicant abused the proceedings.
Legal Principle(s)
When a response to a management request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response was due to file an application to the 爆料网DT. When a response is received but after the expiration of that 90-day period, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with the 爆料网DT. Ongoing exchanges with the MEU do not re-set the applicable time limits. 爆料网DT may award costs against a party where a determination is made that that party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it.