51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. UNAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, UNAT granted the motion. UNAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the UNDT judgment remained in force.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and UNRWA and that UNAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

UNAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-416. UNAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. UNAT held that it was not open to UNDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to UNDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, UNDT exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-418. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member¡¯s appointment. UNAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked UNDT to overturn a policy. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in excluding documents from the OSF and by ordering compensation for alleged damages not related to any established illegality. UNAT held that, even if the irregularities and delays in the appraisal procedure were so serious that they rendered the ¡­ evaluations meaningless, it did not mean that they should not be kept in the OSF. UNAT held that they, together with the corrective substitute reports or decisions, should all be kept in order to explain the whole process. UNAT, therefore, held that UNDT had erred in...

UNAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that UNDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. UNAT held that it was unnecessary for UNDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. UNAT held that the error committed by UNDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. UNAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established UNAT jurisprudence. However, UNAT also held that parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by UNDT remained legally valid until such time as UNAT vacated it. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal 51ÁÔÆæ UNDT¡¯s order was vexatious. UNAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s decision that the 60 days¡¯ deadline for the staff member to request management evaluation started from 18 March 2011, the date of the impugned decision. UNAT held that the application was, therefore, receivable pursuant to Staff Rule 11. 2(c). UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding, that the repeated renewal of appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave Mr. Igbinedion a legitimate expectation of renewal, was per incuriam and contravened clear and consistent jurisprudence...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. UNAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that UNDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. UNAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. UNAT held that UNDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. UNAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. UNAT held that there was no legal authority for UNDT to commence the...

UNAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. UNAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. UNAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

UNAT held that there was no reason to interfere with UNDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving UNDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. UNAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.