2018-UNAT-855, Salem
UNAT referred to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the UNRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. UNAT further found no fault in UNRWA DT’s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to issue a disciplinary measure against a former staff member. UNAT also held that UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s contentions do not demonstrate that the justification provided for the non-renewal decision by the Commissioner-General was a false one. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s position was to be restructured and reclassified with effect from 1 January 2017 and there were no funds to simultaneously uphold her current position; consequently, it was only possible to extend her LDC until the end of 2016. UNAT further noted that, as her position was to be restructured, an extension of her current appointment beyond 31 December 2016 was not possible for budgetary reasons, and the Appellant had declined the offer of an extension until the end of the year, UNRWA DT did not err when finding that the Administration’s decision was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to extend her LDC for only two months and 10 days instead of six months. UNRWA DT was satisfied with the justification for the decision provided by the Commissioner-General, namely that there was a change in the source of funding for the Applicant’s post. UNRWA DT further considered, in light of the Applicant’s positive Performance Evaluation Report, that the contested decision did not constitute an act of retaliation following her complaint against the PMO. UNRWA DT accordingly dismissed the application in its entirety.
The Administration has broad discretion whether or not to conduct disciplinary investigations against a staff member. Only under special circumstances may a staff member request that such investigations be undertaken against another staff member.
No relief was ordered.