51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT observed that the Appellant did not challenge the reasoning of UNDT, but appealed on the ground that the administrative policy in place should be changed because she was promoted but her gross income was reduced. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s pay calculations also took into account other deductions and increases such that her net income increased. UNAT held that the real issue before it was whether UNDT made a reversible error in fact or law such that it must allow the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not disagree that, on its face, the calculations of her salary were made...

UNAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, UNDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. UNAT held there was no basis to disagree with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment on merits only became final when UNDT issued the judgment on compensation. UNAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the UNDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which UNDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. UNAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. UNAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that UNDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and remanded it to UNDT for further proceedings.

The staff member appealed on the ground that UNDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. UNAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, UNAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by UNDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. UNAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the UNDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076) and Wu (2010-UNAT-042), UNAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. UNAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. UNAT also noted...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. UNAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. UNAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific...