51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that...

The Appellant sought reversal of the UNDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. UNAT held that the UNDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction. UNAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. UNAT held that UNDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. UNAT also noted that it does...

MOn the issue of receivability, UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that the application was receivable in its entirety, as each of the three decisions taken on ALWOP were distinct and the Appellant failed to seek management evaluation of the first and second decisions. UNAT held the application was only receivable ratione materiae in respect of the third and last decision. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the extension of the Appellant¡¯s ALWOP was a material error of law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that 12 months ALWOP was...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before UNDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, UNAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. UNAT held that knowledge of the...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, UNAT held there was no final, appealable...

UNAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that UNRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

As preliminary matters, UNAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by UNAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. UNAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to UNDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to UNDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.