UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the Agency had failed to observe its own regulatory framework and failed to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in exercising its discretion. The discretion of the Commissioner-General to reject a request for these benefits such as EVS is not unfettered.
The Dispute Tribunal committed an error in procedure by relying on ex parte evidence in the form of three doctors’ notes, of which the Secretary-General received the translated copies only two days before the issuance of the impugned Judgment, in violation of audi alteram partem. The Dispute Tribunal failed to consider the “checks and balances to ensure transparency” instituted in established procedures as outlined in the Guidelines and the ability of the Applicant to raise timely concerns about potential bias after the interview. As there is no obligation to provide the names of the...
The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that Mustafa et al. had been informed of the impugned decision to deny a request to set their grade level at Grade 14 on 19 March 2018. Neither did it err when it found that the applications were not receivable, because the requests for decision review were submitted after the deadline.
UNAT dismissed the application for revision, because Mr. Sirhan did not present any decisive fact which could lead to a revision of the UNAT Judgment.
Appeals dismissed, UNDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General’s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General’s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable, the ICSC decision...
UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...
The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the UNRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...
UNAT found the UNDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, UNAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer’s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...
UNAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the UNDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, UNAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the UNDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). UNAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...
UNAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. UNAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...
