51ÁÔÆæ

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 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.

UNAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-029bis. UNAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. UNAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, UNAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis. UNAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, UNAT held that the UNRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. UNAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. UNAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

UNAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

UNAT affirmed the UNJSPB¡¯s decision denying the staff member¡¯s request for restoration of her first participation period. UNAT found that the amended Article 24 of the UNJSPF¡¯s Regulations only allowed for restoration of a participant¡¯s most recent period of contributory service and that the staff member had requested restoration of a participation period which was not the most recent one.

UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. UNAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. UNAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-UNAT-018 (Mahdi)

UNAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. UNAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. UNAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. UNAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.