����AV

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi’s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi’s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been “finalized” or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration’s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes’ appeal against the reclassification decision. UNAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

UNAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. UNAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and UNRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). UNAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. UNAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. UNAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

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...

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, UNAT reversed UNDT’s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...