51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that UNDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. UNAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

UNAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill ¡°some¡± staff members. UNAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, UNAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by UNDT and the award that UNAT considered ought to have been made. UNAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. UNAT further affirmed UNDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. UNAT, however, noted that UNDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. UNAT further noted that this error by UNDT did not adversely affect...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. UNAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. UNAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

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...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the UNDT Judge was biased, UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, UNAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. UNAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. UNAT disagreed with UNDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting UNAT intervention...

nglUNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. UNAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. UNAT held that UNDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. UNAT held that UNDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that UNDT...