����AV

On the termination decision, UNAT affirmed UNDT’s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before UNDT. UNAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, UNAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

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...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. UNAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the UNDT. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.

The UNAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the UNDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

UNAT found no fault with the UNDT’s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. UNAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar’s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...

UNAT held that UNDT’s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that UNOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal’s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by UNDT and by which UNDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got’s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by UNDT, UNAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Russo-Got’s application against the abolition of his post was not receivable, as he had failed to make a request for management evaluation within time. UNAT held that UNDT also correctly dismissed his application against the non-renewal of his FTA because he had received notice of the date of the non-renewal, there was no express promise to renew, and UNOPS was not obliged to find him an alternative post.

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving “by clear and convincing evidence” in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that “it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity” (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

Case 1. Mere knowledge of or acquaintance with one or more candidates by an interview panel member does not disqualify her or him from being on the panel. It would be otherwise if there were a personal relationship (such as family or friendship) with or personal antipathy for a candidate. The practical apprehension that objective and independent assessment will be adversely affected, quite apart from any issue of fairness, is improper. Where a panel member has another interest that could significantly affect his or her assessment, this should also require exclusion from the panel. In this case...