����AV

UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member’s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

UNAT considered whether UNDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant’s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. UNAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. UNAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. UNAT held that UNDT contradicted UNAT’s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s repeated renewal of the Applicant’s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant’s claim in respect to the 2011–2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...

The Tribunal found that the main issues for determination in this matter were 1) whether a temporary job opening limited to “local recruitment only” is lawful, and 2) if the Applicant’s candidature was given full and fair consideration. On the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Respondent’s argument that pursuant to section 1.1 of ST/AI/2010/4 Rev.1 (Administration of temporary appointments) the Organization may limit temporary job openings to local recruitment cannot stand. It also found that there were no legal grounds for the Respondent’s assertion that limiting temporary recruitments...