2025-UNAT-1535, Koffi Gilles Wilfried Amani
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The UNAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.
The UNAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19-related element in his final pay statement the staff member had been seeking to challenge nor why he believed that the UNDT had erred. The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that he had failed to identify a reviewable administrative decision concerning the impact of the Covid-19 crisis.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested several decisions: non-payment of the single parent allowance; non-payment of the education grant; partial non-payment of the commutation of unused annual leave; and a decision regarding the consideration of the impact of the Covid-19 crisis.
In Judgment No. UNDT/2024/005, the UNDT dismissed the application as not receivable.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The management evaluation process has its own rationale of enabling the Administration to reassess the situation and correct mistakes or errors without the need for judicial review. Hence, absent a request for management evaluation, the Dispute Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to review the administrative decision brought before it.
It is not the role of the UNDT to advise the parties on their legal obligations of which they are presumed to be aware, or to direct them to respect the statutory time limits set out in the Staff Regulations and Rules.
Statutory time limits must be determined on objective elements that both parties can accurately determine. Repeated correspondence entered into with the Administration after the issuance of the contested decision does not reset the clock for the statutory time limits.
Pay slips may constitute notice of a positive administrative decision in respect of the elements that are contained therein, and of an implied administrative decision for the other elements that are not. Therefore, if the staff member wishes to contest any of these elements, he or she must observe the statutory time limits from the date on which he or she first received that pay slip.
The burden of identifying the contested decision lies primarily with the applicant, who must (i) identify the administrative decision he or she wishes to contest, and (ii) show that the contested decision is in non-compliance with the terms of his or her appointment.