¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant’s post). UNAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. UNAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade UNAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s finding that the...

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, UNAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. UNAT found that UNRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant’s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), UNAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, UNRWA DT...

UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT’s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that UNRWA’s decision not to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. UNAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant’s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut...

ArUNAT held that UNRWA DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, UNAT held that UNRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. UNAT held that the inference drawn by UNRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

UNAT held that, in light of the undertaking the Appellant had signed agreeing to work on the relevant education programme at the remuneration rate determined by UNRWA, his acceptance of that rate was not compatible with his subsequent claim for retroactive readjustments. UNAT held that the extra and external activities as a lecturer for physical education did not have the consequence to modify the job duties or title of the Appellant’s post. UNAT held that UNRWA DT properly treated the question of the Appellant’s additional work in light of PD A/3 related to the parallel education programme...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the contention that UNRWA DT erred in law. UNAT upheld the findings of UNRWA DT that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the Appellant’s post was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of law. UNAT held that there was evidence of a process that was motivated by budgetary constraints as well as concerns about the effective management of a redundancy process. UNAT found no procedural irregularity or any error in law on the part of UNRWA DT...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s finding. UNAT held that no purpose would have been served by the conduct of an evaluation exercise for a post that was about to be or had been abolished. UNAT accepted the UNRWA DT’s finding that there was a genuine redundancy situation. UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT erred in law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that UNRWA’s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. UNAT accordingly found that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant’s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant’s request for compensation, UNAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. UNAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by UNRWA in tranche 2 list. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that the Appellant had...