����AV

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the UNRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. UNAT held that the Appellants’ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant’s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant’s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. UNAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

Chapter 6.3.1 of the UNHCR Staff Administraion and Management Manual (SAMM) provides that “staff members on active duty who hold an indefinite or a fixed-term appointment will be entitled to maternity leave with full pay for a total period of 16 weeks comprising a pre-natal and a post-natal period. When the expiry date of a staff member’s fixed-term appointment, which is not considered for renewal, falls before the beginning of the six-week period prior to the delivery date, there will be no entitlement to maternity leave”.The Applicant’s contract expired on 31 December 2006. At that time, she...

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant’s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years “partially meets expectations”. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving “by clear and convincing evidence” in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that “it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity” (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

UNDT found that the restructuring and the creation of the new post were undertaken in good faith and the decisions to abolish the applicant’s post and to end his contract were proper. UNDT also found that the applicant was told about the new post and invited to apply. As to the failure to complete the work plan and performance evaluation reports, this was irrelevant because it was not the reason for the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract, and, in any case, was due to the applicant himself. Outcome: The application was dismissed.

There was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, to reach a finding of serious misconduct. The sanction of summary dismissal was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The applications are dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration’s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant’s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant’s supervisors’ assessment...

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member’s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...