¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the Appellant’s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that the UNDT’s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. UNAT held that the Appellant’s allegation that the decision not to approve his annual leave request was arbitrary and capricious had no foundation. UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied the criteria for launching a fact-finding investigation and the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in UNDT’s finding that the decision, that there were not sufficient grounds to warrant a fact-finding investigation, was tainted by any procedural flaw. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established that UNDT overlooked violations of his due process rights. UNAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in the UNDT’s finding that he had not been subjected to harassment and that the decision not to undertake further enquiries was not in breach of his terms of appointment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.