51ÁÔÆæ

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The Tribunal found that the Applicant, whose child was born on 2 May 2022, was entitled to four weeks of paternity leave or eight weeks of adoption leave under the 2018 Staff Rules and ST/AI/2005/2, which he exercised. He was not, as he contends, ¡°placed in a no-man¡¯s land between two [Administrative Instructions]¡±.

The fact that the Applicant requested and was exceptionally granted additional leave after 1 January 2023 is...

The transitional measure under the new parental leave scheme grants an additional 10 weeks of SLWFP to staff members who were already on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. This measure was created to facilitate the transition from the previous parental leave scheme to the new one, and to enable equity and fairness in the treatment of staff members who became parents by giving birth. The Applicant, however, had exhausted her maternity leave entitlements and was instead on annual leave on 1 January 2023.

The Tribunal found no merit in her argument that she should be considered as still on...

The transitional measure under the new parental leave scheme grants an additional 10 weeks of special leave with full pay ("SLWFP") to staff members who were already on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. This measure was created to facilitate the transition from the previous parental leave scheme to the new one, and to enable equity and fairness in the treatment of staff members who became parents by giving birth.

The Tribunal found that the transitional measure was a fair, reasonable, and rational solution. Under it, all birthing parents that were still on maternity leave when the new policy...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA¡¯s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant¡¯s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

The UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s determination of the former staff member¡¯s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the UNRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

Receivability

The Applicant correctly submitted that he was not contesting the promulgation of the Mobility AI. It was clear from the content of the application that he did not challenge the existence of the Mobility AI as a regulatory decision of the Secretary-General affecting all staff members. Instead, he was contesting the impact of what he perceived as a specific decision made after he accepted the offer of appointment, i.e., that the Mobility AI would be a term of his employment contract. The Tribunal thus found the application receivable.

Merits

The Tribunal established that the Applicant...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of ¡°D¡±. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant¡¯s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant¡¯s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.