51ÁÔÆæ

The Appellant contested the UNDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. UNAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal¡¯s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. UNAT affirmed the UNDT finding that the Administration¡¯s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

UNAT held that there was no valid claim of unfair treatment and discrimination by the Appellant against the former Chief of ATS and UNDT therefore correctly limited its consideration to the interview process. UNAT held that the Appellant was merely repeating arguments that were adequately considered by UNDT and that there were no reasons to reverse UNDT¡¯s judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that UNDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. UNAT held that it was within the competence of UNDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, UNDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. UNAT found that UNDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, UNAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...

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...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and M Akyeampong on the issue of whether Ms Akyeampong could be denied a promotion on account of the two reprimands. UNAT held that the two reprimands had not been an obstacle to Ms Akyeampong filling a D-1 position or being recommended for a promotion. Moreover, UNAT held that the presence of the two reprimands had not debarred her from being promoted during the 2009 annual promotion session. UNAT allowed Ms Akyeampong¡¯s appeal in part, rescinded the impugned decision and dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, with Judge Weinberg de...

UNAT considered Ms Worsley¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA¡¯s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. UNAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA¡¯s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that UNDT previously considered in its judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.

UNAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before UNDT. However, UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the UNDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

UNAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. UNAT dismissed the appeal.