Search

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The UNAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and “non decisions” concerning the processing of her claim.

The UNAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member’s application challenging alleged decisions and...

The UNAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an “absolute impossibility” to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that by denying the staff member’s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties’ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The UNAT found no merit in the staff member’s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the UNDT was obliged to consider.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT noted that in its prior Judgment the UNAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The UNAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The UNAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration’s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General’s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to “analyze the facts” and “ask...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in finding that Ms. Johnson-Simmons’s claim to compensation for unpaid taxes not receivable, as not only did Ms. Johnson-Simmons fail to identify the contested administrative decision regarding reimbursement for income tax payments, but she also admitted that she did not submit the matter for management evaluation, and there was no indication that she had paid any taxes.

The UNAT found that Ms. Johnson-Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed relevant information about her changed residency status from the Organization, and she also willfully...

The UNAT noted that a part of the staff member’s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the UNDT. The UNAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The UNAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

The UNAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund’s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The UNAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The UNAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The UNAT concluded that the...

The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member’s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had considered the staff member’s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The UNAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The UNAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The UNAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO’s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The UNAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-UNAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty’s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

The UNAT found that in the absence of an express mandate in the legal framework that a continuing appointment can be extended or a staff member be re-instated for the purpose of utilizing sick leave, Mr. Iacovino’s entitlement to sick leave ceased on the date specified in his termination letter, 31 December 2023. The UNAT recognized that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3, staff on fixed-term appointments may be granted an extension to utilize an entitlement to sick leave, but there is no analogous rule applicable to staff serving on a continuing appointment, much less to staff whose appointments have...

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The UNAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The UNAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The UNAT found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the UNAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin’s claim that the UNDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin’s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin’s case were fundamentally and...

The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member’s application before the UNDT was not receivable. In this regard, the UNAT first rejected his contention...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) –specifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination – in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the UNAT or the UNDT.

The UNAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...