undt 2015 085.pdf

Aperçu du fichier PDF undt-2015-085.pdf

Page 1 2 3 45626

Aperçu texte

Case No. UNDT/NY/2014/026
Judgment No. UNDT/2015/085

On 10 February 2014, since the request for management evaluation was no
longer pending before [the MEU], the [Dispute Tribunal] (Order No. 32,
NY/2014) dismissed the Applicant’s suspension of action …

Nine weeks after the UNSU elections, in a letter to [the USG/DM] dated
11 February 2014, Applicant addressed the fact that the Arbitration Committee
still had not been seized of any complaints about irregularities or dissatisfactions
with the elections held on 10 and 11 December 2013 and therefore the UnderSecretary-General had no valid ground to refrain from taking action …
To date, the Under-Secretary-General has not answered this letter.

However, on 19 February 2014, … [the] Director of the USG/DM’s
Office, called Applicant to his office to address the latter’s concerns about
[the USG/DM’s] refusal to grant him full-time release. During the meeting,
[the Director] proposed to resolve the alleged disputes regarding the elections by
appointing an external or internal arbitrator whose mission would be to solve
the dispute by arranging a meeting to be attended by an Administration’s
representative, … ([the] Former President of the 44th Staff Council), … [a]
defeated candidate in the elections held on 10 and 11 December 2013) and

Upon this patent attempt of the Administration to interfere with the UNSU
elections, in a letter dated 21 February 2014, Applicant asked [the USG/DM] to,
once again, reconsider his position but to no avail …

On 24 February 2014, Applicant retained counsel to challenge
the Administration’s actions and to enforce [the USG/DM’s] duty to immediately
grant him full-time release from his assigned duties as Population Affairs Officer
during his term as President of the [UNSU].

Applicant’s Counsel filed a request for management evaluation
emphasizing that since the MEU’s decision dated 7 February 2014,
the Arbitration Committee had ruled, for the second time, and informed
[the USG/DM] via email that the electoral process for elections held on 10 and
11 December 2013 was valid.

On 25 February 2014, [MEU] rejected Applicant’s request for
management evaluation on false grounds, alleging that while Applicant “raised
new arguments to some degree, (he) presented no new evidence or information to
either distinguish it from the matter previously disposed or otherwise argue for
reconsideration” …

On 18 March 2014, in responding to a complaint lodged by … the newly
elected Arbitration Committee (elected in February 2014) reaffirmed the
24 January 2014 ruling of the previous Arbitration Committee to wit that
the election of 10 and 11 December 2013 “was conducted via a valid process” …

Based upon this ruling, on 20 March 2014, Applicant sent a letter to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations requesting immediate grant of full-

Page 4 of 26