51ÁÔÆæ

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and UNAT were unaware of various UNRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. UNAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, UNAT also reasoned prior UNRWA DT judgments do not...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT accepted UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, UNAT held that, contrary to UNRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of UNRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. UNAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. UNAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. UNAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, UNAT held that the UNRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. UNAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. UNAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

UNAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with UNRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the UNRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before UNRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected UNRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, UNAT found no merit on this ground. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. UNAT held that, absent an appealable...