51ÁÔÆæ

ArUNAT held that UNRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, UNAT held that UNRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. UNAT held that the inference drawn by UNRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. UNAT found no fault in the UNJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, UNAT dismissed Mr Awe¡¯s motion to file additional comments. UNAT considered Mr Awe¡¯s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...

UNAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the UNJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. UNAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the UNJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. UNAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. UNAT held that there was no obligation for UNJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. UNAT held that...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) by mistake. UNAT held that UNDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submission, UNAT held that UNDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the...

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 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 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...