51�Թ�

The Applicant’s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.

In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the 51�Թ� Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant’s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.

The UNAT found that the decision not to select the staff member for TJO 161651 was lawful. It held that since the staff member did not challenge the cancellation of TJO 14924, under which the Administration initially advertised the position of Administrative Officer, that cancellation decision was not part of the contested decision under review. In any event, the UNAT determined that the Administration had the discretion to cancel TJO 149241 and re-advertise the position under TJO 161651 after the selected candidate withdrew her candidature. It was under no obligation to invite the second...

Receivability

The Applicant correctly submitted that he was not contesting the promulgation of the Mobility AI. It was clear from the content of the application that he did not challenge the existence of the Mobility AI as a regulatory decision of the Secretary-General affecting all staff members. Instead, he was contesting the impact of what he perceived as a specific decision made after he accepted the offer of appointment, i.e., that the Mobility AI would be a term of his employment contract. The Tribunal thus found the application receivable.

Merits

The Tribunal established that the...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

The Tribunal established that the Applicant was duly informed, before accepting the offer letter, of the mandatory nature of the condition of mobility in her proposed employment. However, even if mandatory mobility had not been so explicit in the pre-appointment documents, the regulatory framework stipulates at staff rule 4.1 that it is the letter of appointment (LOA) that contains expressly or by reference the terms and conditions of employment.

Therefore, when the Applicant signed her LOA on 3 October 2023, duly accepting all the terms and conditions of her employment, including the...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) “a list of candidates” that was “endorsed by a central review body” or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that “[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction”. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant’s view that her involvement with “contentious” discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration’s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the UNDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the UNDT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

The UNDT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead’s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years. The UNDT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an “equivalent certification”. In the present case, the UNDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...