51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the ABCC¡¯s 30-month delay in processing the claim for compensation was excessive. It found that a reasonable delay for decision-making in this claim would have been no more than 24 weeks. It held that the additional delay of 24 months and 13 days, without adequate explanation, was unlawful and violated the Administration¡¯s duty to treat the dependents of the deceased staff member fairly and reasonably.

With respect to the compensation awarded, the UNAT affirmed the UNDT¡¯s award of six months¡¯ net base salary for moral harm. However, the...

The UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The UNAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the UNDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the UNDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness¡¯s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member¡¯s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The UNAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior UNAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The UNAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the UNAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the UNAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The UNAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the UNAT Judgment was clear...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and was denied.

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s UNJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

The UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the UNDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The UNDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the UNDT¡¯s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The UNDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The UNAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The UNRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire souffrait d'un probl¨¨me m¨¦dical n¨¦cessitant des soins qui avait une incidence sur sa capacit¨¦ ¨¤ reprendre le travail, qu'il avait consenti ¨¤ l'examen m¨¦dical ind¨¦pendant et qu'il n'avait pas contest¨¦ ces dossiers devant le TDPI ni en appel.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si la d¨¦cision ST/AI/2019/1 ¨¦tait applicable aux fonctionnaires du HCR ou consid¨¦r¨¦e comme un mod¨¨le de pratique ¨¦quitable, elle n'aurait pas rendu l'examen m¨¦dical ind¨¦pendant irr¨¦gulier.

L'UNAT n'a trouv¨¦ aucun motif pour infirmer la d¨¦cision de l'UNDT selon laquelle il n'y avait aucune preuve de...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que les ordonnances contest¨¦es rejetant les demandes d'anonymat du fonctionnaire avaient ¨¦t¨¦ rendues moins d'un mois apr¨¨s que le TFP ait fait droit ¨¤ sa demande d'anonymat dans une autre affaire.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les ordonnances contest¨¦es n'¨¦taient pas isol¨¦es et que l'interaction de toutes ces proc¨¦dures rendait la situation exceptionnelle. Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le fait de lui refuser l'anonymat pour ses deux demandes uniquement irait ¨¤ l'encontre de l'objectif de l'anonymat et que, dans les circonstances particuli¨¨res de cette proc¨¦dure, cette incoh¨¦rence portait atteinte ¨¤...

The UNAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the UNDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The UNAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The UNAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The UNAT...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the UNDT nor on appeal.

The UNAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to UNHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The UNAT found no basis to overturn the UNDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que, dans son traitement rigide des preuves relatives au comportement d'AAY, l'UNDT n'a pas tenu compte de ce qu'avait admis AAY lorsqu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ interrog¨¦ par le Bureau des services de contr?le interne. Le fait qu'AAY ait choisi de ne pas t¨¦moigner lors de l'audition de l'UNDT montre clairement qu'il s'en tient ¨¤ la d¨¦claration qu'il a faite aux enqu¨ºteurs du BSCI. L'UNDT ¨¦tait tenue de prendre en compte cette preuve incontest¨¦e de sa part dans son ¨¦valuation de la preuve de la faute commise ¨¤ son encontre, d'autant plus qu'il n'a pas choisi de t¨¦moigner...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que le changement de titre de l'ancienne fonctionnaire ¨¤ la suite d'un reclassement n'¨¦quivalait pas ¨¤ une abolition ou ¨¤ une suppression de son poste, ce qui rendait son licenciement ill¨¦gal.

Le TANU a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en accordant ¨¤ l'ancienne fonctionnaire une compensation en lieu et place de deux ann¨¦es de salaire de base net. ? cet ¨¦gard, le TANU a soulign¨¦ que le Tribunal avait correctement pris en compte le fait que l'engagement permanent de l'ancienne fonctionnaire...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur de fait, entra?nant une d¨¦cision manifestement d¨¦raisonnable, lorsqu'il a constat¨¦ qu'une d¨¦cision de licenciement avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 1er avril 2022. ? cet ¨¦gard, le TANU a constat¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de placer une note dans le dossier administratif de l'ancien fonctionnaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 1er avril 2022, mais que la d¨¦cision de licenciement avait en fait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 11 mars 2022. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU aurait d? identifier l'une ou l'autre d¨¦cision comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, mais il a commis une erreur en suivant l...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ les nouveaux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s pour la premi¨¨re fois en appel, qui visaient ¨¤ justifier l'introduction tardive de l'affaire en l'attribuant ¨¤ la situation personnelle de l'avocat du requ¨¦rant.

Le TANU est d'avis que les membres du personnel doivent g¨¦n¨¦ralement respecter les d¨¦lais fix¨¦s. Toutefois, en l'esp¨¨ce, le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur de fait et de droit en rejetant la demande de M. Khan au motif qu'elle n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Il a conclu que les circonstances exceptionnelles de M. Khan - notamment de graves inondations...