51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered appeals by both the staff member and the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the fact was undisputed that the staff member knowingly presented non-existent credentials despite questioning the ethics of accepting the document with his qualifications. UNAT held that termination was not disproportionate to the offence, taking into account that the staff member¡¯s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which never would have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. UNAT held that UNRWA...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment under appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to UNDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, UNDT exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, UNAT granted the motion. UNAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the UNDT judgment remained in force.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. UNAT held that it was unnecessary for UNDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. UNAT held that the error committed by UNDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. UNAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

UNAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that UNDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s conclusion, that the assault committed was not misconduct and that the Organisation¡¯s jurisdictional competence did not extend to the physical assault of a non-UN staff member even where the assault is perpetrated by a staff member, was based on reasoning which was unsupported by law or the facts. UNAT held that, not only the issue had not been raised in the case presented to UNDT, but such a proposition had also no foundation in the staff regulations, staff rules, administrative instructions, or jurisprudence. UNAT held...

UNAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. UNAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. UNAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

UNAT held that UNDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that UNDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. UNAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. UNAT held that the misconduct had been established...