UNDT/2025/029

UNDT/2025/029, Christian Castelli

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Regarding claim 1, the Tribunal held that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that could prove any form of misconduct against the OIOS or UNIFIL officials who handled his complaint. Accordingly, claim 1 was rejected.

For claim 2, the Tribunal noted that, upon his request, via emails dated 22 August 2024 and 31 October 2024, the OIOS provided the Applicant with an explanation for the closure of his Complaint without investigation. Therefore, claim 2 was found to be moot.

Claim 3 was found not receivable. The Tribunal held that the outcome of a management evaluation request was not an administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of its Statute. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim.

In light of the foregoing, the application was rejected in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed three claims:

a. (a) Failure by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (“UNIFIL”), Chief, Conduct and Discipline Office to properly review his complaint against his First Reporting Officer for unreasonable refusal of a requested flexible working arrangement(“FWA”) (claim 1);

b. (b) Refusal by OIOS to give him specific reasons for the closure of his complaint without investigation (claim 2); and

c. (c) The decision of the Management Advice and Evaluation Section on his management evaluation request for the foregoing decisions (claim 3).

Legal Principle(s)

Both a failure by OIOS to properly review a staff member's complaint of unreasonable refusal of FWA, and a refusal by OIOS to provide a staff member specific reasons for closing his complaint without investigation have an effect on a staff member's work relatoinship, given that such decisions could have negatively affected a staff member's contractual employment rights.

It remains very difficult to see an abuse of disretion in the denial/delay of FWA without providing a basis, where no right to FWA is envisaged.

The lack of a staff member's right to Flexible Work Arrangements (FWA) excludes any abuse in the manager's failure to give or to promptly give a reasoning for the refusal of its concession.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Christian Castelli
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories