51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the requisite standard to rebut the presumption that the restructuring was genuine and therefore a valid reason for not renewing her FTA.

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a ¡°management evaluation request¡±. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission¡¯s Chief of Staff, constitutes ¡°management evaluation¡± for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 51ÁÔÆæ the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the UNDT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

The UNDT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead¡¯s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years.The UNDT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance evaluation an ¡°administrative decision¡± with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the UNDT did not err in finding her application receivable.

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance as ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The UNAT noted that when the staff member had moved to North Carolina, he had not enquired whether or not he was obligated to pay the income tax of that state. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General had erred in applying a one-year time limit to his request for reimbursement of his North Carolina state income tax for 2015-2018.

The UNAT considered the language of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, interpretative doctrines, the legal regime of staff assessment, the hierarchy of the relevant norms and the apparent intent of the General Assembly. The UNAT...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified UNDP as the respondent in the present case because it was UNDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The UNAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The UNAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036...