51ÁÔÆæ

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s actions were consistent with a concluded intent not to return to her duty station, no matter the lack of basis. Therefore, the Respondent¡¯s decision to separate her on the ground of abandonment of post was lawful.

Rescission of the contested non-renewal decision In its Judgment Quatrini UNDT/2020/043, the Tribunal found that the Organization failed to justify the non-renewal of the contract of the Applicant and that the decision to separate him from service was therefore flawed. The Tribunal further held, comparing the P-5 level position formerly encumbered by the Applicant with the one advertised in the Global Mechanism, that the two positions are essentially the same, the Tribunal thus drew the inference that the position still exists. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the most...

The Tribunal considered that the reclassification of the post encumbered by the Applicant did not follow UNOPS Regulations and Rules concerning reclassification. It consequently found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment beyond 31 December 2017, taken only as a result of the said reclassification of the post, was unlawful. On remedies, this Tribunal found that the determination of the compensation in lieu between the minimum and the maximum provided by the Statute must take into account¡ªso graduating the amount accordingly¡ªthe specific circumstances of the case...

As the Applicant had effectively withdrawn his request for management evaluation, the application was not receivable ratione materiae under staff 11.2(a). Related

The various justifications given by the Administration suffered from inconsistencies and inaccuracies and not fully supported by the facts. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the decision was ill-motivated as alleged. The decision is unlawful. Reinstatement is not possible because the relevant office is closed. The Applicant did not prove that the harm was directly caused by the contested decision and therefore rejects his claim for moral damages.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety. It held that the impugned decision was lawful because there was nothing on the record to suggest that the Respondent had acted outside the scope of lawful discretion in designing and conducting the selection process. In addition, the Applicant had not demonstrated that in his evaluation relevant material had not been taken into consideration.

The Respondent requested the Tribunal to redact the names of the victim and her family from ¡°any public filings in this case¡±. The Tribunal considered the request reasonable and decided to refrain from using the victim¡¯s name as well as the name of the members of her family in its judgment to preserve their privacy and to protect them from any negative repercussion. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Since the Applicant had been working for the Organization since...

Staff members are entitled to due process in relation to their complaints, not to a particular finding against another staff member or to a particular decision by the Organization towards another staff member. The Applicant¡¯s claims have all been comprehensively addressed by the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, and the Applicant failed to establish a basis for which further remedies should be granted. The application is rejected in its entirety.

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant¡¯s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within UNIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related

The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant¡¯s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the UNDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the UNDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. UNAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

nglUNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. UNAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. UNAT held that...

UNAT noted that the deceased staff member, Mr Pise, could have been under no illusion when he signed the payment instruction forms that he had opted to receive, in addition to a deferred pension, his own contributions plus interest as an immediate withdrawal benefit rather than a prospective survivor¡¯s benefit. UNAT noted that he was informed of that interpretation twice subsequent to his separation and did not challenge those determinations. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Pise received the benefits payable to him in terms of the Fund¡¯s Regulations and there was no basis thereunder...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. UNAT held that it was well within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that UNDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, UNAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from UNAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 UNDT judgment, UNAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. UNAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that in the...

UNAT held that UNJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by UNJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to UNAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, UNAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. UNAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...