����AV

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT’s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The UNAT found that there was an error in the UNRWA DT’s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the UNRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNRWA DT’s methodology of fixing...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant’s application for judicial review was not...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, UNAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, UNAT...

Staff rule 111.2 (a) requires that a staff member who wishes to challenge an administrative decision to request the Secretary-General, within two months of notification of the said decision, for the decision to be reconsidered. This period starts from the notification of the first refusal decision. The sending by the administration of decisions confirming a first refusal does not reopen the deadlines. However, it is up to the judge to ascertain before rejecting a time-barred request that the staff member has not been misled by the administration on the terms of his appeal.

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving “by clear and convincing evidence” in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that “it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity” (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.