����AV

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The UNAT was of the view that, as the UNDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The UNAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record...

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The contested decision impacted the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It had a negative impact on the Applicant’s legal situation vis-à-vis his employer and on his ability to properly plan his professional life. It also altered the reason for the Applicant’s separation from service from termination of contract due to abolishment of post to non-renewal. Consequently, the application is receivable ratione materiae.

There is no evidence confirming the alleged operational needs justifying the contested decision to keep the Applicant beyond 31 May 2021. There is enough...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s explanation as to why the Applicant’s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant’s complaint involved one specific incident, i.e., a chain of emails where his performance was being criticized, which evolved into two managerial decisions by his supervisors: a transfer of functions and instauration of a PIP. The Applicant perceived those emails as harassment. However, for a staff member’s behaviour to be punishable as constituting the disciplinary offence of harassment pursuant to ST/SGB/2019/8, the analysis of said behaviour must pass a two-fold test: it must be found “improper and unwelcome” and “might reasonably be expected or be...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months’ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months’ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent’s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...