Rule 4.13(c)

  • 9.8(c)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Appendix B
  • Appendix C
  • Appendix D
  • Article 3.9(g)
  • Article 4.17(b)
  • Chapter IV
  • Chapter X
  • Chapter XI
  • Disposition 9.6(c)(iii)
  • Provisional Rule 11.1
  • Rule 1
  • Rule 1.1
  • Rule 1.1(c)
  • Rule 1.1(j)
  • Rule 1.2
  • Rule 1.2(a)
  • Rule 1.2(b)
  • Rule 1.2(c)
  • Rule 1.2(d)
  • Rule 1.2(e)
  • Rule 1.2(f)
  • Rule 1.2(g)
  • Rule 1.2(h)
  • Rule 1.2(i)
  • Rule 1.2(j)
  • Rule 1.2(k)
  • Rule 1.2(p)
  • Rule 1.2(q)
  • Rule 1.2(r)
  • Rule 1.2(s)
  • Rule 1.2(t)
  • Rule 1.3
  • Rule 1.3(a)
  • Rule 1.5
  • Rule 1.5(a)
  • Rule 1.5(c)
  • Rule 1.6
  • Rule 1.7
  • Rule 1.9
  • Rule 10
  • Rule 10.1
  • Rule 10.1(a)
  • Rule 10.1(b)
  • Rule 10.1(c)
  • Rule 10.2
  • Rule 10.2(a)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(v)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(vii)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(viii)
  • Rule 10.2(b)
  • Rule 10.2(b)(i-iii)
  • Rule 10.2(b)(i)
  • Rule 10.2(b)(iii)
  • Rule 10.2(c)
  • Rule 10.2(vii)
  • Rule 10.3
  • Rule 10.3(a)
  • Rule 10.3(b)
  • Rule 10.3(c)
  • Rule 10.4
  • Rule 10.4 (c) (ii)
  • Rule 10.4(a)
  • Rule 10.5
  • Rule 101.1
  • Rule 101.2
  • Rule 101.2(b)
  • Rule 101.2(c)
  • Rule 101.2(d)
  • Rule 101.2(p)
  • Rule 101.3
  • Rule 101.3(a)
  • Rule 103.12
  • Rule 103.15
  • Rule 103.20(b)
  • Rule 104.11
  • Rule 104.12
  • Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
  • Rule 104.12(c)
  • Rule 104.13
  • Rule 104.14
  • Rule 104.14(a)(ii)
  • Rule 104.15
  • Rule 104.15(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.3
  • Rule 104.3(a)
  • Rule 104.3(b)
  • Rule 104.7
  • Rule 104.7(c)
  • Rule 104.8
  • Rule 105.1(c)
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 105.2(a)
  • Rule 105.3
  • Rule 107.20(i)
  • Rule 107.9
  • Rule 108.1
  • Rule 109.1(c)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(i)
  • Rule 109.3
  • Rule 109.4(d)
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(a)
  • Rule 11
  • Rule 11.1
  • Rule 11.1(a)
  • Rule 11.1(c)
  • Rule 11.2
  • Rule 11.2 (c)
  • Rule 11.2 (d)
  • Rule 11.2(a)
  • Rule 11.2(b)
  • Rule 11.2(c)
  • Rule 11.2(d)
  • Rule 11.3
  • Rule 11.3(b)(i)
  • Rule 11.3(c)
  • Rule 11.3(ii)
  • Rule 11.4
  • Rule 11.4(a)
  • Rule 11.4(b)
  • Rule 11.4(c)
  • Rule 11.4(d)
  • Rule 11.4(g)
  • Rule 11.5(d)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.2(a)
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 110.4
  • Rule 110.4(b)
  • Rule 110.4(b)(i)
  • Rule 110.7(b)
  • Rule 110.7(d)
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2.2
  • Rule 111.2(a)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 111.2(f)
  • Rule 112.2(b)
  • Rule 112.3
  • Rule 12.3
  • Rule 12.3(b)
  • Rule 13.1
  • Rule 13.1(a)
  • Rule 13.1(c)
  • Rule 13.1(d)
  • Rule 13.1(e)
  • Rule 13.1(f)
  • Rule 13.11
  • Rule 13.2
  • Rule 13.4
  • Rule 14
  • Rule 14(b)(ii)
  • Rule 17
  • Rule 2.1
  • Rule 204.2
  • Rule 3.1
  • Rule 3.1(b)
  • Rule 3.10
  • Rule 3.10(a)
  • Rule 3.10(b)
  • Rule 3.11(a)
  • Rule 3.13
  • Rule 3.14
  • Rule 3.14(a)
  • Rule 3.15
  • Rule 3.15(ii)
  • Rule 3.16
  • Rule 3.17
  • Rule 3.17(c)
  • Rule 3.17(ii)
  • Rule 3.18
  • Rule 3.18(a)
  • Rule 3.18(b)
  • Rule 3.18(c)
  • Rule 3.18(c)(ii)
  • Rule 3.18(c)(iii)
  • Rule 3.18(e)
  • Rule 3.19
  • Rule 3.19(a)
  • Rule 3.19(g)
  • Rule 3.2(g)
  • Rule 3.3(a)
  • Rule 3.4
  • Rule 3.4(a)
  • Rule 3.4(e)
  • Rule 3.5
  • Rule 3.6
  • Rule 3.6(a)
  • Rule 3.6(a)(iv)
  • Rule 3.6(b)
  • Rule 3.6(d)
  • Rule 3.7
  • Rule 3.7(c)
  • Rule 3.9
  • Rule 3.9(b)
  • Rule 301
  • Rule 301.3(i)
  • Rule 304.4
  • Rule 309.3
  • Rule 309.4
  • Rule 4
  • Rule 4.1
  • Rule 4.12
  • Rule 4.12(a)
  • Rule 4.12(b)
  • Rule 4.12(c)
  • Rule 4.12(c)
  • Rule 4.13
  • Rule 4.13(a)
  • Rule 4.13(b)
  • Rule 4.13(c)
  • Rule 4.14
  • Rule 4.14 (b)
  • Rule 4.14(b)
  • Rule 4.15
  • Rule 4.16
  • Rule 4.16
  • Rule 4.16
  • Rule 4.16(b)(i)
  • Rule 4.16(b)(ii)
  • Rule 4.17
  • Rule 4.17(c)
  • Rule 4.18
  • Rule 4.18(a)
  • Rule 4.18(c)
  • Rule 4.19
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.3
  • Rule 4.4
  • Rule 4.4(a)
  • Rule 4.4(b)
  • Rule 4.5
  • Rule 4.5(a)
  • Rule 4.5(b)
  • Rule 4.5(c)
  • Rule 4.5(d)
  • Rule 4.6
  • Rule 4.7
  • Rule 4.7(a)
  • Rule 4.8
  • Rule 4.8(b)
  • Rule 4.9(a)
  • Rule 5.1(e)(ii)
  • Rule 5.2
  • Rule 5.2(c)
  • Rule 5.3
  • Rule 5.3(c)
  • Rule 5.3(e)
  • Rule 5.3(f)
  • Rule 5.3(ii)
  • Rule 6.1
  • Rule 6.2
  • Rule 6.2(a)
  • Rule 6.2(b)
  • Rule 6.2(b)(ii)
  • Rule 6.2(f)
  • Rule 6.2(g)
  • Rule 6.2(j)
  • Rule 6.2(k)
  • Rule 6.2(k)(iii)
  • Rule 6.29b)(i)
  • Rule 6.3
  • Rule 6.3(a)
  • Rule 6.4
  • Rule 6.5
  • Rule 6.6
  • Rule 7
  • Rule 7.1
  • Rule 7.1(a)
  • Rule 7.1(a)(iv)
  • Rule 7.1(b)
  • Rule 7.10
  • Rule 7.14
  • Rule 7.14(d)
  • Rule 7.15
  • Rule 7.15(h)
  • Rule 7.16
  • Rule 7.2
  • Rule 7.4
  • Rule 7.6
  • Rule 8.1
  • Rule 8.1(a)
  • Rule 8.1(f)
  • Rule 8.2
  • Rule 9
  • Rule 9.1
  • Rule 9.1(a)
  • Rule 9.11
  • Rule 9.11 (a) (vii)
  • Rule 9.12
  • Rule 9.2
  • Rule 9.2(a)
  • Rule 9.2(b)
  • Rule 9.2(c)
  • Rule 9.3
  • Rule 9.3(a)(i)
  • Rule 9.3(c)(i)
  • Rule 9.4
  • Rule 9.5
  • Rule 9.6
  • Rule 9.6
  • Rule 9.6 (c)(i)
  • Rule 9.6.(b)
  • Rule 9.6(a)
  • Rule 9.6(b)
  • Rule 9.6(c)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(i)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(ii)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(iii)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(v)
  • Rule 9.6(e)
  • Rule 9.6(f)
  • Rule 9.6(g)
  • Rule 9.6(h)
  • Rule 9.6(i)
  • Rule 9.7
  • Rule 9.7(a)
  • Rule 9.7(b)
  • Rule 9.7(d)
  • Rule 9.8
  • Rule 9.8(a)
  • Rule 9.9
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 65

    The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

    The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

    A staff member’s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-UNAT-1030, para. 34).

    The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by UNICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

    Accordin...

    The UNAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the UNAMID mission.

    With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the UNAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The UNAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

    The Respondent discharged the evidentiary burden of minimal showing that the decisions regarding abolition of the Applicant’s post leading to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and separation were lawful. The witnesses were credible, their evidence was cogent, reliable, consistent and corroborative. It was not contradicted in any meaningful manner. After examining the Applicant’s and his witnesses’ testimonies, the Tribunal was not convinced that the Applicant has made a clear and convincing case to rebut the presumption that the abolition of his post leading to the non-renewal of his...

    The main issue for the Tribunal’s consideration in this case related to whether the abolishment of the Applicant’s post leading to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was lawful.

    The Tribunal defined the issues to be examined in the present case as follows:

    Whether the restructuring was genuine;
    The evidence on record showed that the restructuring was done within the framework of the UN Secretariat-wide transition of Enterprise Information and Communication Technology (“ICT”) services to the cloud. ESCAP made strategic changes to implement this new approach, leading to the...

    The Secretary-General appealed.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT erred in law and fact and reached a manifestly unreasonable decision by concluding that Mr. Hossain had proved on a balance of probabilities that the administrative decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment had been motivated by improper motives and he had been discriminated against. The reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr. Hossain’s fixed-term appointment, namely the abolition of his post in the context of a reorganization exercise, were valid reasons.

    The UNAT further held that contrary to what Mr...

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the UNDT should have rescinded the Administration’s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

    As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, UNAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

    Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal

    The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG did not constitute an express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing.

    There is no evidence of a firm commitment to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. While the Applicant sought to rely on the CITO/ASG’s verbal statements in March...

    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...