¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. UNDT/2011/209 (on liability) and UNDT/2012/062 (on relief). UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the UNDT’s conclusion that, had the UN Staff Pension Committee (UNSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. UNAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. UNAT held that it was proper for the Secretary-General to terminate Ms Shanks’ appointment, since there was no other option. UNAT held that Ms Shanks’ inability to satisfy the minimum UNDP policy requirements for part-time employment was a crucial piece of evidence that UNDT had failed to properly consider and that this failure led the UNDT to serious factual errors, resulting in manifestly unreasonable decisions. UNAT held that these factual errors tainted both UNDT judgments and rendered the findings therein untenable. UNAT held that the failure of human resources to inform Ms Shanks that a determination of disability would result in her termination had no consequences for Ms Shanks. UNAT held that Ms Shanks suffered no actual prejudice which could result in compensable damages. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated both UNDT judgments.