UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and upheld UNDT’s judgment. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s request that her challenge of the first recruitment process be placed in abeyance until completion of the second recruitment process was unusual and rightly declined by UNDT. UNAT held that no right of the Appellant was infringed upon, as she had not been denied an opportunity to compete for the post in question. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s judgment.
In considering the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the Standing Committee could not reject the request unless it disregarded the provisions of Article 33(a) of the UNJSPF Regulations. However, UNAT noted that it was not in a position to rule on the actual possibility for the Appellant to perform the duties of her respective position and held that the Standing Committee should reconsider the Appellant’s request. UNAT rescinded the Standing Committee’s decision and remanded the Appellant’s request to the Standing Committee for review.
UNAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. UNAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. UNAT held that the Appellant’s decision could not simply be reversed. UNAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...
UNAT affirmed the UNDT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. UNAT also affirmed the UNDT judgments rejecting the staff member’s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the UNDT judges. UNAT further rejected the staff member’s request that UNAT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the UNAT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that UNDT erred when it decided to give UNHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. UNAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the UNDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). UNAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and affirmed the decisions of UNJSPB Standing Committee. UNAT found that the Appellant’s first ground of appeal had no merit, noting that the Appellant had prior notice of her separation and could have exercised her right to restore her participation prior to the time of her separation in accordance with Section F. 1 of the Pension Fund’s Administrative Rules, which she failed to do. UNAT held that UNJSPF Standing Committee had no discretion to make an exception in this case and the Standing Committee’s decision not to restore the Appellant’s prior...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeals against UNDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. UNAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute authorizes UNDT to order suspension of a contested decision only “during the pendency of the management evaluation”. UNAT found that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...
UNAT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the UN. UNAT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. UNAT held that UNDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...
UNAT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member’s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of UNDT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. UNAT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member’s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by UNDT. UNAT reversed the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to...
