91�鶹����

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant’s arguments are in effect an attempt to enforce rights which the General Assembly specifically considered and decided not to confer upon staff associations and those acting in the capacity of staff association representatives.No direct legal consequencesIn Lee 2014-UNAT-481, the Appeals Tribunal upheld the Dispute Tribunal’s finding that a budgetary proposal made to the General Assembly to abolish a staff member’s post was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review because it did not produce direct legal consequences on the staff member’s terms and conditions of employment. The Appeals Tribunal held that both the submission of a budget proposal and the adoption of a budget proposal are merely acts preceding an administrative decision that would produce direct legal consequences.Costs The Applicant may well be frustrated by what he perceived as a failure to consult the staff representatives on a matter over which they feel that they had a right to be consulted. However, a challenge before the Tribunal is wholly inappropriate in circumstances where it is clear that the Tribunal does not have power to grant the relief sought. The manner in which these proceedings have been conducted by the Applicant constitutes a manifest abuse of process. The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent’s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not submit the contested decision for management evaluation—the request for management evaluation that he relied upon was submitted before the contested decision was made. In any event, the Applicant did not have standing to enforce his right to consultation as a staff representative. The contested decision also did not have direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had manifestly abused the proceedings and ordered costs against him in the sum of USD500 under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.