51ÁÔÆæ

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯elle n¡¯avait pas comp¨¦tence ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard de Mme Fogarty, car celle-ci ¨¦tait une ancienne employ¨¦e de l¡¯OMI et que la d¨¦cision qu¡¯elle contestait ¨C ¨¤ savoir l¡¯absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte de la part de l¡¯OMI ¨¤ l¡¯encontre du directeur de l¡¯administration ¨C n¡¯avait pas d¡¯incidence sur les conditions de son ancien contrat de travail. Le TNA a relev¨¦ qu¡¯il avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦tabli, dans son jugement n¡ã 2026-TNA-1620, que le comportement du directeur de l¡¯administration, dont Mme Fogarty se plaignait, n¡¯avait entra?n¨¦ aucune cons¨¦quence n¨¦gative pour elle en ce qui concerne sa demande de prestations...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The UNAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the UNDT was obliged to consider.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The UNAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-UNAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l¡¯UNRWA n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de clore l¡¯enqu¨ºte sur la plainte d¨¦pos¨¦e par l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a jug¨¦ que le r¨¦cit de l¡¯incident au cours duquel B se serait frott¨¦ contre elle
constituait un cas ambigu de harc¨¨lement sexuel, et qu¡¯il appartenait donc ¨¤ l¡¯enqu¨ºteur et ¨¤ la personne charg¨¦e de prendre la
d¨¦cision de conclure que les ¨¦l¨¦ments de l¡¯affaire n¡¯¨¦taient pas suffisamment solides pour engager des poursuites contre B. L¡¯UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que les deux autres incidents invoqu¨¦s par l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e ¨C...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the decision to close the investigation into the former staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful.It found that the account of the incident in which B allegedly rubbed against her presented an equivocal case of sexual harassment, and that it was therefore open to the investigator and to the decision-maker to conclude that the case was of insufficient strength to pursue against B.The UNAT further found that the two other incidents invoked by the former staff member ¨C B allegedly walking to her side in a corridor and offering her to drink...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que la proc¨¦dure neutre de premi¨¨re instance mise en place par l¡¯OMI, ¨¤ savoir le SAB, ¨¦tait correctement
constitu¨¦e et r¨¦pondait aux exigences de l¡¯article 2, paragraphe 10, du Statut de l¡¯UNAT. L¡¯UNAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument selon lequel le SAB manquait de neutralit¨¦. L¡¯UNAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le SAB avait ¨¦tabli un compte rendu ¨¦crit suffisant de sa d¨¦cision.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le SAB avait agi dans les limites de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence lorsqu¡¯il avait r¨¦examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral sur recommandation de l¡¯ABCC. Le SAB avait tenu d?ment compte du...

The UNAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The UNAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The UNAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯audience orale au cours de la proc¨¦dure devant l¡¯UNDT et ne pouvait donc pas ¨ºtre autoris¨¦ ¨¤ le faire en appel. L¡¯UNDT, en tant qu¡¯instance charg¨¦e d¡¯appr¨¦cier les faits, ne peut ¨ºtre contourn¨¦e.

L¡¯UNAT n¡¯a constat¨¦ aucune erreur dans la conclusion de l¡¯UNDT selon laquelle les griefs formul¨¦s par l¡¯ancien membre du
personnel apr¨¨s sa cessation de service sortaient du champ de comp¨¦tence de cette derni¨¨re et n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables, faute de
demande pr¨¦alable et introduite dans les d¨¦lais en vue d¡¯une ¨¦valuation par la...

The UNAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the UNDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The UNDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯UNDT avait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa juridiction ou sa comp¨¦tence en rendant les ordonnances interlocutoires contest¨¦es relatives ¨¤ la gestion de l¡¯instance, et si les
erreurs de proc¨¦dure all¨¦gu¨¦es ¨¦taient effectivement irr¨¦m¨¦diables par un jugement d¨¦finitif ou manifestement d¨¦raisonnables au point de justifier un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours contre des ordonnances interlocutoires ne sont
recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, et que les questions...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si le Tribunal des litiges de l¡¯UNRWA avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits de faute avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis selon la norme de la preuve claire et convaincante, s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en concluant que le comportement constituait une faute grave, et s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en confirmant la proportionnalit¨¦ de la sanction disciplinaire consistant en la cessation de service sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. Il a rappel¨¦ que son r?le n¡¯¨¦tait pas de proc¨¦der ¨¤ un r¨¦examen de novo, mais de...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (UNTD) avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait l¨¦galement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en annulant l¡¯offre d¡¯emploi ? Recrutement ¨¤ partir de la liste de r¨¦serve ? ; cette d¨¦cision reposait-elle sur des motifs rationnels et
raisonnables ; et l¡¯UNTD avait-il commis une erreur en rejetant les all¨¦gations du fonctionnaire relatives ¨¤ une discrimination, ¨¤ un motif ill¨¦gitime ou ¨¤ une irr¨¦gularit¨¦ de proc¨¦dure?

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le TND avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le fonctionnaire avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d¡¯un examen complet et ¨¦quitable de sa candidature au poste temporaire vacant ? Avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection n¡¯¨¦tait entach¨¦e d¡¯aucun parti pris, d¡¯aucune discrimination ni d¡¯aucune autre consid¨¦ration ¨¦trang¨¨re ¨¤ l¡¯affaire ? Et avait-il commis une erreur en d¨¦clarant certains griefs irrecevables au motif que le fonctionnaire n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction ? Elle...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

En ce qui concerne les griefs de l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire relatifs au vol pr¨¦sum¨¦ de son salaire, ¨¤ l¡¯absence pr¨¦sum¨¦e de fondement juridique pour le recouvrement de son indemnit¨¦ de fin de service et ¨¤ la retenue ill¨¦gale pr¨¦sum¨¦e de cette indemnit¨¦, l¡¯UNAT a
estim¨¦ que ces griefs n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables ratione materiae, car elle n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ l¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des
d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es dans le d¨¦lai r¨¦glementaire. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯UNAT a en outre...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the UNAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the UNAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the UNDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

The UNAT found that the UNDT...