UNAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.
UNAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. UNAT held that there was no reversible error on part of UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). UNAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...
UNAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. UNAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new UNDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. UNAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to UNDT for consideration on merits. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a...
UNAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. UNAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, UNAT held that UNDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...
UNAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant’s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. UNAT further held that the Appellant’s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA decision.
UNAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, UNAT preliminarily held that the UNRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; UNAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that it was within UNRWA’s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant’s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. UNAT affirmed UNRWA’s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant’s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
UNAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB’s recommendation not to accept the Appellant’s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. UNAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. UNAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant’s services were unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...
