51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a ¡°jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact¡± of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The UNAT also held that the UNDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The UNAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The UNAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the UNDT. The UNAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The UNAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The UNAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The UNAT observed, however, that the UNDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

The UNAT held that none of the factors that the UNRWA DT considered as warranting exceptional compensation, were indeed exceptional, either individually or collectively. The UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s permanent staff status, his long service, his difficulties in finding subsequent employment, his status as a refugee, the unproven nature of the sexual harassment allegations, and the delays in his case, were not the type of circumstances that would warrant an exceptional compensation award. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred in awarding in-lieu compensation above the...

The Applicant¡¯s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.

Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.

The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Applicant admitted that the hotel receipts he provided to the Organization were false. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Respondent had proven by overwhelming evidence, beyond all possible doubt, that the Applicant submitted false receipts for reimbursement and that, as a result, he was paid USD18,519.12. The Tribunal, further, established that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant owed the Organization at least USD17,213.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that...

The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner.

The Tribunal also considered the merits of the Applicant¡¯s submissions in respect of the propriety of the impugned decision. The Applicant incurred expenses that were clearly communicated to him as unauthorised prior to his travel. There is nothing on the record to show that the decision was tainted, improperly made or otherwise unlawful. In other words, even if the application had been found to be receivable, it would...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred in consolidating the seven cases. The consolidated cases involved unique administrative decisions, and those decisions involved neither a common administrative policy nor a common set of facts. The nature of the misconduct attributed to the staff members was not similar among the cases. The cases concerned staff from different UNRWA field offices. The disciplinary measures taken were not identical among the cases, but included a wide range of penalties. The standards of proof for the misconduct alleged in case varied.

The UNAT disagreed with the...

The UNAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The UNAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The UNAT found that the UNWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The UNAT concluded that the UNRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

Under ¡°Preliminary Issues¡±, the Tribunal decided to strike from the record the Applicant¡¯s motion for anonymity and to exceptionally accept the Applicant¡¯s closing submission which exceeded the page limit.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by evidence and up to the required standard of proof.

The Tribunal noted that the sanction was based on four allegations, which it considered separately. After having considered the evidence on record for each allegation, the Tribunal found that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that...

The UNAT held that the UNDT Judge was not obligated to indicate their inclination on the evidence, especially since all evidence had not yet been presented.

Considering various elements, including the Investigation Report, the WhatsApp message exchanges, and the former staff member¡¯s admissions, the UNAT found the Complainant¡¯s account of events credible. It concluded that the former staff member¡¯s alleged conduct of calling the Complainant to his room on 1 August 2020 and asking her to come to his bed was established by clear and convincing evidence and amounted to sexual harassment. It...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the UNDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the UNAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The UNAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the UNAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the UNAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the UNAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the UNAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...