The UNAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The UNAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.
The UNAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The UNAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The UNAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The UNAT denied the Director General’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members’ motion.
The UNAT found that the Secretary-General’s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The UNAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General’s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The UNAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...
The UNAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The UNAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The UNAT found, however, that when the UNDT...
The UNAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the UNAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The UNAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member’s half-brother, Mr. SRB’s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...
The UNAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The UNAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.
The UNAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the UNAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General’s calculation of two years’ net base salary was appropriate.
The UNAT further held that the deductions made for...
The UNAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the UNDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.
The UNAT nevertheless noted that the staff member’s application filed with the UNDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the UNAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a UNDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.
The UNAT found that the staff member sought to...
The UNAT rejected Mr. Salon’s argument that the prior UNAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The UNAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the UNAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the UNAT Statute’s provisions for an application for interpretation.
The UNAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the UNAT Judgment was clear...
The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.
The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.
