¹ú²úAV

The UNAT declined Mr. Turk’s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the UNDT’s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

The UNAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The UNAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization’s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the UNAT held that the...

The Applicant was found suitable for available positions. Indeed, for one job opening, he was one of the eight candidates short-listed and convoked to interview. By shortlisting him, the Administration tacitly acknowledged that he was deemed suitable for the position; per Timothy UNDT/2017/080, as a continuing appointment holder facing termination, the Administration was obliged from that point to consider his candidacy on a preferred, non-competitive basis.

The Tribunal found that the Administration failed in its obligation to make good faith efforts to absorb the Applicant into a new post...

UNAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. UNAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

UNAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay’s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. UNAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

UNAT disagreed and reversed the UNDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

UNAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant’s retirement. UNAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. UNAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. UNAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months’ net base salary as compensation.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, UNDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. UNAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, UNDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. UNAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

UNAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that UNDT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on UNDT’s part. UNAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with UNDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...