2013-UNAT-281, Pacheco
UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of UNDT regarding the abolition of her post. UNAT recalled the broad discretion of UNDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of UNDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the truth. However, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy UNAT that the UNDT judgment had one or more of the five defects provided for in Article 2.1(a) to (e) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
The Applicant contested the decision to abolish her post and separate her from service. UNDT rejected the application, finding that the Applicant had failed to present evidence that persuaded it that the abolition of post was manifestly unreasonable, motivated by ill-will or a calculated scheme to remove her from the office and that warranted the UNDT’s interference with the Respondent’s discretion.
An international organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. UNDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto.