¹ú²úAV

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing.  The UNRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT and upheld...

UNAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. UNAT noted that, as UNDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. UNAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. UNAT found no error in the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

UNAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. UNAT held that there was no error in this regard. UNAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, UNRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant’s claims for loss of opportunity. UNAT held that, in view of...

The Tribunal found that was no breach of former staff rule 109.3(a) or 109.3(c) and the applicant’s due process rights were respected. Outcome: Application dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the relinquishment of the Applicant’s post was not imposed upon her by the Administration. It occurred at her own initiative and of her free will. It found that the termination decision was lawful and rejected the application. Termination of an FTA: The FTA of a staff member who signed an agreement relinquishing the lien on his/her regular post and, hence, who has no post to return to, can be terminated on the basis of that agreement. The Administration has no duty to make good faith efforts to place that staff member against a suitable post beyond the terms of the...

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and UNICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.