UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.
UNAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member’s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, UNAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, UNAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, UNAT held...
UNAT held that it was clear from the record that UNDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. UNAT held that UNDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. UNAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the UNDT for a rehearing de...
UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.
Noting that the position in question remained vacant, UNAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of UNRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...
UNAT held that while the UNRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. UNAT held that the fact that UNRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the UNRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that...
UNAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. UNAT supported the reasoning of UNDT in rejecting the Appellant’s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found...
UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. UNAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...
UNAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. UNAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. UNAT held that the contested...
UNAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that UNDT should have only received her application against the selection decision whilst the decision not to short-list the Appellant is examined as a part of the final non-selection decision. UNAT held that the appeal was defective as the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. UNAT rejected...
