2015-UNAT-514, Abu Nada
UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. UNAT held that UNDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant’s complaint that UNRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by UNRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, UNAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the UNRWA DT when it determined these deductions constituted a separate administrative decision, which could not be reviewed in the context of the application before the UNDT. UNAT found no merit in the other claims put forward by the Appellant. Noting that UNRWA DT awarded compensation beyond the two years’ net base salary, UNAT held that the award fell well within the bounds of reasonableness and that the award was fair and reasonable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to suspend him without pay and his subsequent summary dismissal for serious misconduct. UNRWA DT found that the decision to suspend him was not receivable, the summary dismissal was lawful, and awarded moral damages of 25 months’ net base salary for the excessive delay.
The first instance tribunal is the body best placed to assess the level of damages to be awarded in any particular case. In the absence of a compelling argument that UNDT erred on a question of law, or on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, UNAT will not lightly interfere with the findings of the first instance tribunal.
Only financial compensation; Only financial compensation.