¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that because the factual basis for the JAB’s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice or extraneous facts, no decision was taken by the JAB on the legal question of whether the summary dismissal of the Appellant was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. UNAT held that the final decision was taken by the Secretary-General of WMO, who, as the employer, was not a neutral body. UNAT held that the appeal could not be determined without additional fact-finding that may require oral testimony in relation to several material issues. UNAT remanded the case to the JAB for reconsideration of the appeal and for the JAB to make various essential factual and legal determinations, which it listed, directing that its findings must be substantiated on proper evidence and be set out in a written decision determining the ultimate issue. In addition to these determinations, UNAT directed the JAB: (1) to make a substantiated finding regarding the allegation that the Appellant’s termination was imposed by the Secretary-General of WMO for improper reasons and as an act of retaliation for the Appellant’s efforts to ensure transparency and better practice; and (2) to take a decision on whether the termination of the appointment complied with the terms of the Appellant’s appointment and whether it is a proportional disciplinary measure.