51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal finds that since the Applicant¡¯s EOD into the United Nations common system is 10 October 2005, the Administration used the incorrect EOD date for the calculation of the termination indemnity due to the Applicant. Therefore, the contested decision is unlawful and stands to be rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has placed no evidence whatsoever, illustrating any discriminatory treatment against him. On the contrary, the record indicates that the Respondent took measures to ensure that the Applicant did not suffer hardship following his separation from service by...

To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of UNRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the UNRWA DT and that...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that UNDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. UNAT found no error in the UNDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. UNAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. UNAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. UNAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her...

On appeal by the Secretary-General, UNAT found that UNDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT noted that a proper consideration of the whole of the evidence could only have led to one conclusion, and that is that the individual assaulted the victim. UNAT found that UNDT did not consider the evidence objectively, specifically by giving misplaced importance to minor inconsistencies, coming to unreasonable conclusions on the facts which were not supported by the evidence, and making speculations instead of...

UNAT referred to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the UNRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. UNAT further found no fault in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether UNRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, UNAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. UNAT held that there was no room for UNRWA DT to substitute its decision...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before UNDT to justify its findings of ¡°moral injury¡±. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of ¡°moral injury¡± without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.