����AV

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT held that the fact that the UNDT might have repeated some or most of the Respondent’s arguments and language in its judgment would not be sufficient to undermine the UNDT’s considerations or determinations.

Regarding the scope of the appeal, the UNAT held that since the remedy claimed in the appeal does not aim for the rescission of the reassignment, but the placement into a P-5 or D-1 post commensurate with the Appellant’s skills, training, qualifications, and experience for which she has applied and which was not the subject of her initial application, the...

UNAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr.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 UNAT first concluded that the UNDT erred by failing to specify whether the alleged misconduct of sexual exploitation had been established to the required evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence.  Second, the UNAT held that the UNDT had erred in concluding that the victim was a vulnerable person, that Mr. Stefan was aware of her vulnerability, and that he sexually exploited her vulnerability.  The UNAT held that the UNDT erred when it made this finding without any independent or medical evidence, and that the UNDT had relied on its own Internet research regarding various...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury’s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the UNDT was not receivable ratione materiae. 

The...

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that Mr. Suarez Liste be granted additional steps upon initial appointment contrary to the Grading Guidelines for language staff. The UNDT improperly broadened the definition and criteria of “relevant work experience” in the Grading Guidelines to include additional academic qualifications.  By doing so, the UNDT had created a new factor or criterion in the application of the Grading Guidelines, e.g., consideration of a Ph.D. in the step-in-grade calculation. The UNAT held that this was a policy...

The ASG/OHR considered all the relevant facts, and weighed the reasons provided by the Director of the RSCE. She considered the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s prior service on a temporary appointment, and the exception previously granted to the Applicant’s sister. 

The Respondent created no legitimate expectation that the exception previously granted to the Applicant’s sister would automatically result in the Applicant being later granted an exception, too; indeed, the derogation in the past had a different factual basis in the type and length of the relationship (and the temporary...

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant’s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had performance shortcomings as evidenced by the 2016 to 2019 ePADs and by the fact that he failed to initiate the 2020 ePAD.

The Applicant was aware or could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the required performance standards.

The Applicant was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standard and the Administration did not err by not availing him more opportunities to improve considering the totality of circumstances in this case.

The totality of circumstances supported a finding that the termination of the Applicant's appointment was...