UNAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant’s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. UNAT further held that the Appellant’s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA decision.
UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, UNAT preliminarily held that the UNRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; UNAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that it was within UNRWA’s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant’s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. UNAT affirmed UNRWA’s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant’s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant’s termination, UNAT held that the UNRWA JAB’s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. UNAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. UNAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...
UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General’s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. UNAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. UNAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member’s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-UNAT-018 (Mahdi)
UNAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General’s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...
UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. UNAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. UNAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.
In reviewing the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. UNAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. UNAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...
On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB’s recommendation. UNAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. UNAT specifically held that the JAB’s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.
On the issue of receivability, UNAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. UNAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. UNAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. UNAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...
