2020-UNAT-1019, Houran et al
UNAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. UNAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to respond, the Appellants did not meet the Area Staff Rule requirement that a request for review of the administrative decision be made within 60 days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly held that the applications in relation to the decision were not receivable. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly determined that there was no identifiable request for decision review. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact or law in dismissing the applications. UNAT held that the applications to UNRWA DT were not receivable either ratione temporis or ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
The staff members contested UNRWA’s decision not to compensate them for “casual hours”. UNRWA DT held the application was not receivable ratione temporis.
Whether a decision was communicated with sufficient gravitas is relevant to the question of whether an individual was notified. Where there is no written notification, it is incumbent on the body reviewing the matter to consider whether the circumstances surrounding the verbal communication constitute notification. The fundamental requirement for a request for decision review is that the request must be an unambiguous written request which clearly identifies the staff member and the contested decision.
No relief ordered