91�鶹����

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...

Allegations of domestic violence and conflicts over child custody, maintenance or paternity are properly matters for a criminal court and family court to entertain. The Organization has no business using its administrative procedures to involve itself in a personal dispute when other appropriate legal channels were available to the parties to sort out their rights and responsibilities. The unilateral extension of the Applicant’s temporary assignment to Addis Ababa beyond the agreed one month amounted to bias, abuse of authority and a breach of the Applicant’s due process rights.The Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines were not applicable to the recruitment of UNLB GS local staff, because UNLB is not an “established mission” and, therefore, does not fall within their remit; additionally, the Guidelines were never duly issued at ULNB. In fact, given that UNLB is not a peacekeeping operation or a special political mission, GS staff recruitments are covered by ST/AI/2010/3 and do not fall, as argued by the Respondent, in a lacuna of law,. The Tribunal further found that the time-in-grade requirements were abolished long ago and are contrary to norms of superior legal...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...

UNDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. UNDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. UNDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. UNDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. UNDT dismissed all claims.

The Applicant had unusually received SPA for the more than the four-year period she performed functions at a higher level (February 2012 – June 2016). The post she encumbered was reclassified upwards to the FS-6 level in 2012, not 2006. The Tribunal refused her claim that she was performing higher-level functions between 2006 and 2012 when those functions were not recognized through an upward reclassification as higher-level functions. Additionally, under section 6.2(c) of ST/AI/2003/3, in respect of posts reclassified upwards at established missions, an SPA may not become effective before the...

For the purpose of determining eligibility for a SPA, the Applicant performed higher level functions from the date of the issuance of a vacancy announcement for the higher-level post until the selected candidate assumed the higher-level post. As he performed the higher-level functions for less than four months, the Applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria under ST/AI/2003/3. The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for SPA and that the Administration’s decision not to pay it was lawful.

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been “shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member” (see Michaud 2017-UNAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...