51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. UNAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of UNRWA DT, that UNRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. UNAT held that UNRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that, in light of the undertaking the Appellant had signed agreeing to work on the relevant education programme at the remuneration rate determined by UNRWA, his acceptance of that rate was not compatible with his subsequent claim for retroactive readjustments. UNAT held that the extra and external activities as a lecturer for physical education did not have the consequence to modify the job duties or title of the Appellant¡¯s post. UNAT held that UNRWA DT properly treated the question of the Appellant¡¯s additional work in light of PD A/3 related to the parallel education programme...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the contention that UNRWA DT erred in law. UNAT upheld the findings of UNRWA DT that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the Appellant¡¯s post was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of law. UNAT held that there was evidence of a process that was motivated by budgetary constraints as well as concerns about the effective management of a redundancy process. UNAT found no procedural irregularity or any error in law on the part of UNRWA DT...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s finding. UNAT held that no purpose would have been served by the conduct of an evaluation exercise for a post that was about to be or had been abolished. UNAT accepted the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was a genuine redundancy situation. UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNRWA DT erred in law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with UNRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. UNAT directed the Registrar to close the case.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the UNRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that UNRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. UNAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. UNAT held that there was no evidence that UNRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...