51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

UNDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. UNDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. UNDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, UNDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of UNDT. UNDT held that the EOD date as...

UNDT held that the Settlement Agreement was properly before UNDT for its enforcement. UNDT noted that there was no special procedure prescribed by the UNDT Statute or Rules of Procedure or even by any of its Practice Directions for an applicant to bring an application for the enforcement of a Settlement Agreement. UNDT held that there was bad faith on part of the Respondent in regard to the Settlement Agreement by the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. UNDT found that: a. The MONUSCO Administration exhibited bad faith during the negotiations by not informing the Applicant until after he...

UNDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. UNDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with UNDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. UNDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

UNDT held that it was a case in which the host country was not forthcoming or did not provide reasons which justified the PNG decision. UNDT held that once the Organisation had verbally stated, determined and notified the Applicant that the allegations against her were not considered misconduct, it had a duty as per Hassouna (UNDT/2014/094) not to change the terms and conditions of her contract. UNDT held that the Secretary-General had the power to reassign the Applicant on an exceptional basis and should have done so. UNDT held that, according to Hassouna, the Organisation could not resort to...

The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant¡¯s...

The case of misconduct against the Applicant was established by clear and convincing evidence. The Appeals Tribunal has previously made findings on staff members whose occupations within the United Nations system place them in ¡°positions[s] of trust¡± and held that a breach of that trust impacts negatively ¡°on the issue of proportionality.¡± Security officers within the United Nations system similarly occupy positions of trust, charged as they are with the protection of personnel and property of the United Nations. In established cases of theft, the sanction is usually severe. The sanction of...

UNDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant¡¯s post and proceeded with the downsizing. UNDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require UNOCI to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment, neither did it alter UNOCI¡¯s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance...

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.