51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant¡¯s performance was rated as either ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± or ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± since 2015, except for one cycle in which she ¡°fully met¡± expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within UNIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna for reimbursement were not authentic. Despite the foregoing, the Applicant certified to Cigna that the information he was submitting was ¡°correct and true¡± and was therefore, acknowledging that he was aware of the contents of the medical claim and attesting to its authenticity.

The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. Excluding the fake invoice and the fake medical report, no other...

On the issue of illegality, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been removed from his official functions, without case or proper justification, and had been forced to re-apply for his own previous functions. These decisions were taken without reference to any failings of the Applicant, misconduct, indication that he has not successfully performed his functions in the past, or indication that he would not be able to perform his functions in the future.

On the issue of damages, the Tribunal found that although the Applicant kept on holding a continuing appointment at the D-1 level, he...

The documents on record demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Applicant had rented out his flat in Addis Ababa to two other staff members, based on a lease with an inflated rent (and without paying agent¡¯s fees), and that the latter two used that lease to claim rental subsidy from UNHCR in an amount undue.

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in entitlement fraud and received reimbursement for medical services that had not occurred. He falsely certified and submitted three Cigna claims; for which he was paid a total of USD17,171.26. He was not entitled to this reimbursement. As UNDP is self-insured, these funds represented a loss to UNDP.

The Applicant¡¯s behaviour fell within what the UNDP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices (approved in October 2018) defines as fraud. The established facts constituted misconduct.

As to proportionality of the...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant¡¯s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

The issue was whether the Applicant was entitled to education grant for his son¡¯s last year of a five-year degree program which includes two semesters (approximately one year) of no cost/no tuition co-operatives/internships.

The Tribunal held that since the Applicant's son was enrolled in his educational institution during years three and four of his programme, during which the co-op semesters were part of the curriculum, there was no basis not to count years three and four as school years. As these years entailed less expenses on account of tuition not being paid during the co-op semesters...

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...

The UNAT held that the ISA JAB was correct in determining that Ms. Nguyen was: (1) not entitled to a repatriation grant from ISA; (2) not entitled to payment for unused accrued annual leave, which was transferred to her subsequent employer, UNRWA; (3) not entitled to reimbursement for certain school supply expenses; and (4) not entitled to the non-removal allowance, which was a discontinued benefit. However, the UNAT also held that the ISA JAB erred in denying Ms. Nguyen a relocation grant, and erred in denying her the travel expenses and travel time from Kingston, Jamaica to New York. The...

The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli¡¯s cross-appeal in part. The UNAT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the UNDT was ¡°pointless¡± since by the time the case had reached the UNDT, Mr. Rolli¡¯s post had been abolished. The UNAT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision. The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be...

The UNAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez's appeal. The UNAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s argument of apprehension of partiality of the hiring manager claiming that there was an improper motive to unfairly eliminate him. The Appeals Tribunal found that the mere fact that the hiring manager was involved in two selection exercises in which Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was not successful did not indicate any partiality, but rather a regular exercise of the Administration¡¯s routine of selecting candidates for advertised positions. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not err in finding no irregularity in...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the UNDT erred in its consideration of the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s experience against the evaluation criteria; the UNDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that ¡°none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening¡±, and concluding that ¡°at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria¡±. In so doing, the UNDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC¡¯s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The UNAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the UNAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT found that AAL was given notice of the need for her to return to the duty station, as well as sufficient opportunity to apply for sick leave. However, she did not request such sick leave, nor did she return to work, leaving no option for the Administration other than to place her on SLWOP. She also failed to provide evidence that there were ¡°compelling personal circumstances¡± so as to engender a decision to allow her to continue to telecommute from outside her official duty station. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not err in finding that AAL...