51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that UNITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member¡¯s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/UNITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. UNITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member¡¯s position. The UNDT did not err in finding that UNITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The UNAT also affirmed the UNDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The UNAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The UNAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the UNDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The UNAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The UNAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The UNAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the UNAT Registrar had no merit. The UNAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the UNAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the UNAT Registrar in her letter. The UNAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The UNAT held that the UNAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The UNAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the UNAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The UNAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The UNAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The UNAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.

The UNAT found that the written witness statement sought to be submitted constituted new and additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT found that it was apparent that the staff member had known of the evidence at the Dispute Tribunal but, as he noted in his motion and appeal brief, had relied on other grounds which he believed were sufficient to substantiate his claims without risking exposing the witness. The UNAT held that this rendered his request to submit additional evidence on appeal inadmissible. The UNAT denied the motion for leave to submit a confidential witness statement.

The UNAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The UNAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The UNAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The UNAT denied the Director General¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members¡¯ motion.

The UNAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the UNRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the UNAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the UNAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The UNAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The UNAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.