51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that:

(a) The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria which would support his claim to whistleblower protection.

(b) The facts of the contested decision were properly establised. Since the Complainant had the relevant qualifications and experience, the Applicant¡¯s attacks on her were neither well founded, nor did they constitute a fair response or comment in the circumstances. The concerns were defamatory of her professionalism and integrity. Accordingly, the Applicant made disparaging remarks about the Complainant in front of other UNJSPF staff. In addition, the Applicant...

It consistently follows from AA¡¯s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant¡¯s many texts on the proposed ¡°bet¡± that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: ¡°Still on that topic man?¡±; ¡°I value my dignity more than $2.000¡±; ¡°I do not bet¡±; ¡°I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my UNFCU account and that is it¡±; ¡°The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over¡±. Despite this...

The Trinunal found that the Applicant¡¯s contest to the decision of 19 July 2021 to place him on ALWP was time-barred as the Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision within the stipulated deadline. The Tribunal found that the subsquent decisions to extend the Applicant¡¯s placement on ALWP were lawful.

The Tribunal found that Applicant¡¯s persistent refusal to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS evaluations for staff members for whom the Applicant was the First Reporting Officer ("FRO") and engage with KJ constituted misconduct. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant...

The Applicant¡¯s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.

In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the United Nations Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant¡¯s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA¡¯s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant¡¯s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

The UNAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the UNDT issued the first Order. The UNAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the UNDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The UNAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the UNDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the UNDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The UNDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The UNAT also determined that the UNDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the UNAT emphasized that the UNDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the UNAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the UNDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...