MEU鈥檚 decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent鈥檚 request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.
In reviewing a decision not to renew an appointment, the role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion not to renew was validly exercised. Where justification is given by the Respondent for the exercise of its discretion, that justification must be borne out by the facts. Both Parties have told the Tribunal that the Applicant took his grievances to the Retention Committee, which Committee then reviewed the Applicant鈥檚 claim and found that the Retention Panel (which the Applicant chaired) had properly carried out the exercise it was charged with. The Tribunal is also...
