51ÁÔÆæ

At the outset, the UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the UNRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on UNRWA staff...

The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.

The UNAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The UNAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par le fonctionnaire contre la r¨¨gle 3.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel (b) ¨C en l¡¯occurrence, la distinction ¨¦tablie entre les candidats internes et externes en mati¨¨re de d¨¦termination de l¡¯¨¦chelon ¨C en vigueur au moment de sa s¨¦lection et dont le r¨¦tablissement avait ¨¦t¨¦ ordonn¨¦ par l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale, ne pouvait faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un contr?le juridictionnel, car cela reviendrait ¨¤ ¨¦valuer le contenu de fond d¡¯une r¨¦solution ¨¤ l¡¯aune de valeurs normatives sup¨¦rieures, question qui ne
relevait ni de la comp¨¦tence de l¡¯UNAT ni de celle du UNDT.

Le TNA a en outre...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the UNAT or the UNDT.

The UNAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...