51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant had accepted the conditions of the RLA, which stated that ¡°the loaned employee shall return to the releasing agency upon completion or termination of his assignment with UNAMID and that no offer of continuing employment shall be made to him by UNAMID without consulting the releasing agency¡±. UNAT held that the Appellant had had a valid employment contract with WFP, and he did not fulfil the conditions for termination under that same agreement. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not formally initiate the transfer procedure and/or termination. UNAT held that UNDT had...

UNAT rejected Mr Gehr¡¯s contention that the restructuring, although a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion, had been carried out arbitrarily to marginalize him. In accordance with paragraph 2. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in its report, advised the Executive Director to conduct a functional review of all UNODC divisions, sections and units, and align them to the reconfirmed prioritized framework for action of the Office, including by reorienting human and financial resources if necessary. The JIU further recommended that the Executive Director take measures to...

UNAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. UNAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with UNDT¡¯s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before UNDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how UNDT erred in...

UNAT considered Mr Kamynyi¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s appeal in its entirety and held that it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level and that such a reassignment is lawful if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. UNAT held that UNDT rightfully rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s request for legal costs, noting that no legal costs were owed to a party when the opposing party had not abused the process. With...

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, UNAT noted that these matters had been...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, UNAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by UNRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, UNAT found that UNRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

UNAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the UNRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. UNAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the UNRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. UNAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment under appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

UNAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke. UNAT held that ST/AI/2003/8 was inapplicable. UNAT held that the relevant administrative instruction was ST/AI/2010/3, which integrated the recruitment, placement, promotion and mobility of staff within the Secretariat. UNAT held that, in its view, the authority to make lateral transfers to fill job openings at the same level extended to both immediate and anticipated job openings, including posts that would become vacant due to retirement. UNAT held that the impugned decision complied with the legal...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both UNRWA DT decisions. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. UNAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...