����AV

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...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that while the determination of which staff members should be compared is “primarily guided by the functional title as per the staff member’s letter of appointment”, there can be cases where the functional title does not reflect the actual functions performed as in the present case. In these circumstances, the CHRO must determine which individual falls into which occupational group. Ms. Barud’s role and functions changed in May 2018 to a Facilities Management Assistant. Therefore, at the...

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...

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months’ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months’ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent’s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

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 held that UNDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant’s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. UNAT held that UNDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNDT made any errors of...

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...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...