±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.

Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within the prescribed time period. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes ±¬ÁÏÍøDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant¡¯s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (¡°±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡±), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at ±¬ÁÏÍø Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to ICTR¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision had no legal consequences which caused her material harm or otherwise adversely affected her terms or conditions of appointment. Request for anonymity: The Tribunal concluded that in balancing the right of the Applicant to have her personal data and sensitive material protected against the principle of transparency, the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any material or information concerning the Applicant that requires protection.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that in her 2011 and 2012 ePAD (performance document), the Applicant had received positive ratings, and that the 2013 ePAD was never finalized. The applicable performance management system (PAMS) requires the finalization of the ePAD in case of non-renewal of appointment for reasons related to performance. Accordingly, since ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR had failed to follow its rules with respect to performance evaluation and performance management, including mediation protocols, and, furthermore, the ¡°alternative¡± process followed by ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR did not provide an equivalent standard of safeguards...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof in showing that her separation from the Organization was motivated by extraneous factors and improper motives. Extraneous factors ¨C There was increased animosity between the Applicant and her various supervisors both in Bor and later when she was transferred to Wau. Consequently, the Tribunal found that bias against the Applicant existed on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS management. Due Process/ Procedural flaw ¨C The responsible officials at the mission all defied the procedures provided for by ST/AI/371 for dealing with reports of...

The Applicant, a former P-3 level staff member of MINUSTAH, sought rescission of the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract. The Respondent asserted that non-renewal was lawful since the Applicant was provisionally reassigned to MINUSTAH when MINURCAT was downsized and his provisional reassignment was contingent upon him receiving FCRB clearance. As the Applicant never received FCRB clearance, his contract was not renewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, following his initial offer, the Applicant received 12 subsequent letters of appointment which did not expressly or by reference refer to him...