51ÁÔÆæ

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant¡¯s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant¡¯s husband served three years after the Applicant¡¯s separation. For these three years of non...

UNAT held that some of the UNDT¡¯s findings were speculative, disregarded the evidence and misapplied the applicable legal framework. In particular, UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member¡¯s conduct was not serious because it endured for a limited duration of time. He not only sexually harassed two women but sexually harassed those two women twice in quick succession. His cumulative behaviour exhibited a disposition, which in this instance caused the complainants significant discomfort and anxiety and impacted on their ongoing professional relationship with him.

UNA...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

The Tribunal found that the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯staxes was lawfuland that the Administration was not liable for the delay in processingof the claim.

The Applicant¡¯s own testimony undermined his claim of extenuatingcircumstances.Histestimony conclusively established thatthe Applicantdid not fileclaims for tax reimbursement in a timely manner because he mistakenly believed that he was not requiredto file and pay taxes to the United StatesGovernment uponexpiry of his permanent residence.His error came to light in August 2019, when the IRS placed alienon his bank account to...

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

The challenge against the decision to place the Applicant on a PIP and the outcome of the review of MEU of the contested decisions is not receivable.

The Administration failed to respect the procedural standards expected from the United Nations in proceedings leading to the imposition of a written reprimand. The above-mentioned deficiencies raise doubts about the appearance of impartiality of the investigation and the decision-making process and are thus sufficient to taint the contested decision. Accordingly, the Administration¡¯s decision to issue to the Applicant a written reprimand and...