51ÁÔÆæ

The UNRWA Commissioner-General appealed. UNAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, UNAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend UNRWA¡¯s regulatory framework. UNAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel¡¯s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. UNAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...

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...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. UNAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before UNRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. UNAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA against judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/004. UNAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that UNRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before UNRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, UNAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. UNAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with UNRWA was reasonable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring UNRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...

UNRWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. UNRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant¡¯s service-incurred injury was unlawful. UNRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board¡¯s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, UNAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the UNRWA DT could not...