51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member¡¯s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions.

The UNAT also concluded that the UNDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The UNAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his UNDT application and his management evaluation...

The UNAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

There is sufficient documentary evidence on record showing that the Applicant was properly made aware of the performance shortcomings he needed to address and improve. He was placed on a PIP that was structured and designed specifically for him, and he was provided with adequate support and guidance to improve.

Having identified, documented, and addressed the Applicant¡¯s performance shortcomings through the applicable rules, the decision not to renew his FTA based on unsatisfactory service, taken after the Applicant was found not to have improved his performance despite being given the...

The UNAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The UNAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous UNAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The UNAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the UNDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the UNDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The UNAT held that the...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The UNAT found that the UNDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.

The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.

The motion is ill-founded and dismissed.