����AV

UNAT rejected Mr Gehr’s contention that the restructuring, although a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion, had been carried out arbitrarily to marginalize him. In accordance with paragraph 2. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in its report, advised the Executive Director to conduct a functional review of all UNODC divisions, sections and units, and align them to the reconfirmed prioritized framework for action of the Office, including by reorienting human and financial resources if necessary. The JIU further recommended that the Executive Director take measures to...

UNAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. UNAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with UNDT’s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before UNDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how UNDT erred in...

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, UNAT noted that these matters had been...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, UNAT found no merit in the Appellant’s arguments. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by UNRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General’s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, UNAT found that UNRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

UNAT considered the Commissioner-General’s appeal, which alleged that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the UNRWA Administration’s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. UNAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the UNRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. UNAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment under appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

UNAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke. UNAT held that ST/AI/2003/8 was inapplicable. UNAT held that the relevant administrative instruction was ST/AI/2010/3, which integrated the recruitment, placement, promotion and mobility of staff within the Secretariat. UNAT held that, in its view, the authority to make lateral transfers to fill job openings at the same level extended to both immediate and anticipated job openings, including posts that would become vacant due to retirement. UNAT held that the impugned decision complied with the legal...

UNAT denied the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT also found no fault with UNDT’s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. UNAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member’s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member’s competence and...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s submission that UNDT’s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure gives UNDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information “for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. UNAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by UNDT was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT’s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. UNAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi’s...