±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant¡¯s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the applicable time limits. The Tribunal found that in respect to decision 3, the Applicant requested management evaluation outside the prescribed time limit and therefore the Application with regard to decision 3 was not receivable. Mediation and Time-Limits: If a party to a dispute makes mediation overtures within the applicable time lines for filing an Application and the other party consents to participation in the mediation process then the time limit for filing an Application is suspended and begins to run when the mediation has...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation of the contested decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s communications with the Human Resources Management Section of the United Nations Office in Vienna in July 2012 did not amount to a request for management evaluation, and even if they were accepted as such a request, it would have been out of time by approximately three months.

The new system consists of a modernization of the system in place and does not change the staff members pre-existing obligation to accurately reflect their working hours. The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any persuasive arguments that would result in it to consider that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. The implementation of a practice, which is used to address specific needs of a department, does not become discriminatory solely due to the fact that other departments within the Organization do...

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.