51ÁÔÆæ

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The UNAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The UNAT found that in the absence of an express mandate in the legal framework that a continuing appointment can be extended or a staff member be re-instated for the purpose of utilizing sick leave, Mr. Iacovino¡¯s entitlement to sick leave ceased on the date specified in his termination letter, 31 December 2023. The UNAT recognized that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3, staff on fixed-term appointments may be granted an extension to utilize an entitlement to sick leave, but there is no analogous rule applicable to staff serving on a continuing appointment, much less to staff whose appointments have...

The UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of UNRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The UNAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯elle n¡¯avait pas comp¨¦tence ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard de Mme Fogarty, car celle-ci ¨¦tait une ancienne employ¨¦e de l¡¯OMI et que la d¨¦cision qu¡¯elle contestait ¨C ¨¤ savoir l¡¯absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte de la part de l¡¯OMI ¨¤ l¡¯encontre du directeur de l¡¯administration ¨C n¡¯avait pas d¡¯incidence sur les conditions de son ancien contrat de travail. Le TNA a relev¨¦ qu¡¯il avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦tabli, dans son jugement n¡ã 2026-TNA-1620, que le comportement du directeur de l¡¯administration, dont Mme Fogarty se plaignait, n¡¯avait entra?n¨¦ aucune cons¨¦quence n¨¦gative pour elle en ce qui concerne sa demande de prestations...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le UNDT n¡¯avait commis aucune erreur de fait ni de droit en concluant que le comportement de la fonctionnaire constituait une faute grave.

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ que le UNDT avait examin¨¦ les explications fournies par la fonctionnaire concernant les erreurs commises lors de la pr¨¦sentation des demandes de subvention pour l¡¯¨¦ducation sp¨¦cialis¨¦e, mais qu¡¯il s¡¯¨¦tait prononc¨¦ contre elle en se fondant sur son ¨¦valuation de son manque de cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que ses conjectures quant aux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve qu¡¯un t¨¦moin potentiel aurait pu apporter relevaient de la simple...

The UNAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The UNAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The UNAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The UNAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The UNAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-UNAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait fourni aucun motif ¨¤ l'appui de son recours, dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait pas r¨¦pondu aux conclusions de la Commission de recours concernant l'irrecevabilit¨¦ de sa demande devant celle-ci, et qu'il n'avait donc pas
satisfait ¨¤ l'obligation qui lui incombait de pr¨¦senter des arguments en faveur de son recours. Aucun argument n'a ¨¦t¨¦ avanc¨¦ qui
aurait permis ¨¤ l'UNAT d'examiner si la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'un vice de forme.

Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ le recours et a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours.

The UNAT found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the UNAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (UNAT) a estim¨¦ que le directeur technique de l¡¯UNRWA n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. L¡¯UNAT a jug¨¦ que le Bureau des affaires internes et de la surveillance (DIOS) ne disposait d¡¯aucun pouvoir d¨¦cisionnel quant au fond de sa plainte pour repr¨¦sailles et qu¡¯il avait men¨¦ son enqu¨ºte uniquement dans le cadre de la proc¨¦dure d¡¯enqu¨ºte, ce qui ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision
administrative susceptible de recours.

De m¨ºme, le TNA a estim¨¦ que la conclusion du...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The UNAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the UNAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que M. Flekal, en acceptant le renvoi de la plainte pour harc¨¨lement le 3 mars 2024 en vue d¡¯une intervention de la direction, avait en substance renonc¨¦ ¨¤ son droit de saisir les tribunaux pour absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte sur ses plaintes pour harc¨¨lement, y compris pour intimidation. L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯instruction technique pertinente du D¨¦partement des services de contr?le interne, l¡¯intimidation ne constitue pas une cat¨¦gorie distincte de faute professionnelle, mais est consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une forme de harc¨¨lement.

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦galement renonc¨¦ ¨¤ sa...

L¡¯UNAT a fait remarquer que la d¨¦cision de soumettre M. Flekal ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure d¡¯OTI ne constituait qu¡¯une ¨¦tape interm¨¦diaire du processus de gestion des performances et n¡¯avait eu aucun impact direct ni aucune cons¨¦quence d¨¦favorable sur ses conditions de nomination ou son contrat de travail; il ne s¡¯agissait donc pas d¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours judiciaire.

L¡¯UNAT a constat¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite pour raisons m¨¦dicales, d¨¦clar¨¦ inapte au service et b¨¦n¨¦ficiait d¡¯une pension d¡¯invalidit¨¦. Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite de l¡¯Agence en raison du non...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯une partie l¨¦s¨¦e par le rejet d¡¯une mesure provisoire peut, et doit g¨¦n¨¦ralement, attendre que l¡¯affaire soit
d¨¦finitivement tranch¨¦e avant d¡¯interjeter appel.

L¡¯UNAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision relative ¨¤ une mesure provisoire peut faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un r¨¦examen s¡¯il est d¨¦montr¨¦ que le tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le JAB, a outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence.

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ que le JAB est express¨¦ment habilit¨¦ par le r¨¨glement du personnel de l¡¯ISA ¨¤ d¨¦cider si la suspension d¡¯une mesure administrative est appropri¨¦e, ce qui rel¨¨ve de sa comp¨¦tence et de sa juridiction.

L¡¯UNAT a...

The UNAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The UNAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The UNAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...