¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. UNAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of UNDT and do not merit a reversal except in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting the right to produce evidence. UNAT held that there was no error in the manner in which UNDT exercised its discretion and that it was not persuaded that UNDT had committed any error in procedure in declining to call the witness. UNAT held that, having reviewed the oral recording of the hearing, it was satisfied that UNDT did not make improper or prejudicial comments or reach premature conclusions. Noting that the evidence UNDT refused to admit related to events that arose after the contested decision, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in not taking it into account in assessing the correctness of the decision under its review. With respect to the merits of the case, UNAT held that the Appellant had not persuaded it that the judgment under appeal was affected by any error in law or fact such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that UNDT failed to address his claim that the Administration’s email, which indicated only a limited workload, was undermined by the recruitment of six freelancers the same month was misplaced and UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT’s reasoning on this issue. UNAT held that it was not material to the outcome of the case whether the impugned decision could be said to be tainted by bias or discrimination, as the Appellant had no right to be granted more days of work or any legitimate expectation of being granted more assignments. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.