����AV

UNAT held that the UNDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. UNAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant’s unauthorised absence from duty. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-091) from the present case. UNAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, UNAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by UNDT and the award that UNAT considered ought to have been made. UNAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

UNAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful.  UNAT held that UNDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. UNAT upheld UNDT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. UNAT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. UNDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda’s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda’s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. UNAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed UNDT’s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou’s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. UNAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou’s contract prior to its expiration and...

With respect to the Appellant’s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, UNAT held 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 outcome of the case. UNAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before UNRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. UNAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as “fully meets” expectations, and therefore this...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA against judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/004. UNAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that UNRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before UNRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, UNAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by UNDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. UNAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT’s exercise...