Search
The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY’s conduct, the UNDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the UNDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The UNDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member’s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The UNAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.
The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The UNAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the UNDT.
In any event, the UNAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...
The UNAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The UNAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.
The UNAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the UNAT Judgment. The UNAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The UNAT concluded...
The UNAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the UNAMID mission.
With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the UNAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The UNAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...
The UNAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The UNAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.
The UNAT noted furthermore that the applicant’s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the UNAT in the prior proceedings.
In addition, the UNAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the UNAT granted in...
Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the UNAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The UNAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.
The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the UNDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...
The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the UNAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member’s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the UNDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member’s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.
Nevertheless...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member’s action of gifting a sex toy to a subordinate was inappropriate, as it transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of the subordinate, even if the event took place in private. Whether solicited or not, it had the potential to negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization. Consequently, the UNAT concluded that by doing so, the staff member failed to uphold the required standard expected of her role as a manager.
The UNAT also found that the UNDT committed no error in finding that...
The Tribunal recalled that the regulatory framework on termination for facts anterior does not limit it to cases where there has been a proven prior factual finding of misconduct or a conviction of crime. What is required is that there must be a fact anterior that detracts from the suitability of the prospective recruit due to concerns of efficiency, competence, and integrity. The fact must be of so serious a nature that it would have precluded the staff member’s appointment if it had been disclosed to the Organization during the recruitment process.
In the instant case, the Tribunal...
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had provided no rule or precedent based contextual explanation to support his position. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had not provided any rational explanation for depriving the Applicant of the entitlements to increments afforded under GS Salary Scale 120b to those similarly circumstanced. Accordingly, the Tribunal:
a. Decided to rescind the contested decision;
b. Directed that the Applicant be recognised as having been in continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat from 3 May 1994 and, effective 22 February 2022...
The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.
The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.
The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...
Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.
The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.
In...
The Respondent discharged the evidentiary burden of minimal showing that the decisions regarding abolition of the Applicant’s post leading to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and separation were lawful. The witnesses were credible, their evidence was cogent, reliable, consistent and corroborative. It was not contradicted in any meaningful manner. After examining the Applicant’s and his witnesses’ testimonies, the Tribunal was not convinced that the Applicant has made a clear and convincing case to rebut the presumption that the abolition of his post leading to the non-renewal of his...
The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.
In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:
a. Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;
b. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and
c. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said...
The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant’s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.
The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.
As to the...
The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant’s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration’s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...
The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.
For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.
Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...