Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, UNAT actually rejected the Secretary-General’s appeal on the basis that it was moot. UNAT noted that UNDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.
UNAT disagreed with UNDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General’s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. UNAT firstly held that UNDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. UNAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...
UNAT disagreed with UNRWA DT and found the supervisor’s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. UNAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor’s request...
Regarding Contested Decision #1, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, UNAT also agreed with UNDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, UNAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, UNAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...
The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. UNAT disagreed and found that staff members should be “retained” in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years’ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, UNAT found because...
UNAT held that the UN-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the UNAT Statute and, consequently, UNAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of UNAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.
UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou’s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission’s budgetary situation.
The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that UNDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. UNAT disagreed and found that the reason UNDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. UNAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...
UNAT agreed with UNDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a “disguised termination”. UNAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.
UNAT held that UNDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant’s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant’s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration’s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. UNAT...
