51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT found no errors in the UNRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The UNAT dismissed the...

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The UNAT reviewed Mr. Mirella¡¯s contention that the UNDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the UNAT evaluated Mr. Mirella¡¯s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the UNFPA Disciplinary Framework, the assessment of the facts of misconduct is not exclusive to OAIS, but that the Director of the Department of Human Resources (Director/DHR) must also analyze the evidence, and such analysis could lead DHR to a different conclusion than that of OAIS. Accordingly, in this case, the UNAT found that the UNFPA Administration had the authority or locus standi to proceed with a disciplinary process even in the absence of a finding of misconduct by OAIS. The UNAT further held that the UNFPA...

The UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The UNAT rejected appellant¡¯s contention that because the UNDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...

A a holder of an UN Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

The Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The UNAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked UN vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...