äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the transitional measure ¨C granting 10 weeks of special leave with full pay (SLWFP) only to mothers who were still on maternity leave on 1 January 2023 ¨C was not unlawfully discriminatory.

It found that, while it might be argued that preferring birth mothers over fathers in the transitional arrangements between the old and new parental leave regimes was discriminatory, it was not unlawfully discriminatory for two reasons: i) the desirability of breastfeeding in circumstances that are inconsistent with their mothers also working full...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant¡¯s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a ¡°management evaluation request¡±. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission¡¯s Chief of Staff, constitutes ¡°management evaluation¡± for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the UNDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the UNDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and UNICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...