����AV

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. UNAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the UNDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the UNOPS Administration had approved such leave. UNAT further held that that the Appellant’s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...

The IAMA requires the receiving organization to recognize a staff member’s service in the releasing organization for “credit” purposes. However, it does not require it to consider that the performance of the contract in the releasing organization was undertaken in a setting other than in its original one. It cannot be considered that the Applicant’s contract was, prior to joining the United Nations, either under the control of the Secretary-General of the United Nations or that the Applicant had to previously answer to the United Nations staff rules. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet the...

The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant’s...

The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant’s status as “divorced”, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.