51ÁÔÆæ

UNRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. UNRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that UNRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. UNAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. UNAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law, and followed binding UNAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before UNDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-936 by Mr Diallo. UNAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to him. UNAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the UNRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to UNDT. UNAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and WMO dated 20 January 2020. UNAT...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, UNAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, UNAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that UNAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. UNAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. UNAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with UNAT¡¯s direction in...