Le TUNAT a noté que le comité d'entretien avait désigné la fonctionnaire comme l'une des candidates recommandées pour le poste, mais que le rapport de recrutement ne mentionnait pas, par erreur, si elle avait été considérée sur une base d'équivalence. Le TUNAT a observé que le comité consultatif avait par la suite estimé que son expérience ne lui permettait pas de bénéficier de l'équivalence et qu'elle ne remplissait pas les conditions requises en matière de formation.

Le TPNU a estimé que, comme la fonctionnaire avait été sélectionnée à tort, sa participation au reste du processus de...

The UNAT held that the Secretary-General had not implicitly withdrawn delegated authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) when the Chef de Cabinet sought advice from the USG/DMSPC.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the USG/DMSPC reasonably rejected the report of the March 2020 Alternate Chair. The UNAT affirmed that the Administration was empowered impliedly to decline to act on a report that it considered as having exceeded its authorized parameters. Moreover, the UNAT concluded that the USG/DMSPC had the...

The UNAT concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that two periods of delay in addressing the former staff member’s complaints was not evidence of bias against her. The UNAT held that delay alone is not indicative of bias.

The UNAT further held that the former staff member’s claims related to a certain press release had been decided by prior Tribunal judgments and could not be relitigated.

The UNAT also found that the UNDT correctly confirmed that the establishment of the fact-finding Panel, its process of fact-finding and reporting, and its interactions with the former staff member...

L'UNAT a rejeté la demande d'anonymat de l'ancienne fonctionnaire, car elle avait été déposée hors délai et sans circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant une dérogation au délai.

L'UNAT a estimé que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancienne fonctionnaire n'était pas recevable. Le délai de 60 jours dans lequel elle devait présenter une demande de révision de décision (RDR) a commencé le 13 septembre 2023 et a pris fin le 11 novembre 2023. Comme sa RDR a été déposée (c'est-à-dire reçue par l'Agence) tard dans la journée du 11 novembre 2023, elle a...

The UNAT held that the former staff member’s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the UNDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The UNAT further found that the Administration’s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The UNAT observed that the evidence before the UNDT was that the decision was...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the transitional measure – granting 10 weeks of special leave with full pay (SLWFP) only to mothers who were still on maternity leave on 1 January 2023 – was not unlawfully discriminatory.

It found that, while it might be argued that preferring birth mothers over fathers in the transitional arrangements between the old and new parental leave regimes was discriminatory, it was not unlawfully discriminatory for two reasons: i) the desirability of breastfeeding in circumstances that are inconsistent with their mothers also working full...

The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

The UNAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The UNAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The UNAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

L'UNAT a noté que l'appel de l'ABD avait été déposé dans les 60 jours suivant la délivrance de l'ordonnance, mais plus de 30 jours après cet événement. Étant donné qu'en vertu de l'article 7(1)(c) du statut de l'UNAT, une partie dispose de 30 jours pour faire appel d'une ordonnance, l'ABD avait dépassé le délai pour faire appel de l'ordonnance contestée de l'UNDT.

L'UNAT a rejeté l'appel comme irrecevable.

L'UNAT a observé que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui prétendait avoir délégué le pouvoir de prendre des décisions en matière d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirmé disposer de nouveaux documents à l'appui de son argumentation.

L'UNAT a estimé que les nouveaux faits découverts ne répondaient pas à l'exigence légale d'avoir une incidence décisive sur l'issue du précédent recours et que, par conséquent, la demande de révision ne satisfaisait pas au critère légal strict prévu à l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'UNAT...

L'UNAT a observé que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui prétendait avoir délégué le pouvoir de prendre des décisions en matière d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirmé disposer de nouveaux documents à l'appui de son argumentation.

L'UNAT a estimé que les nouveaux faits découverts ne répondaient pas à l'exigence légale d'avoir une incidence décisive sur l'issue du précédent recours et que, par conséquent, la demande de révision ne satisfaisait pas au critère légal strict prévu à l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'UNAT et...

L'UNAT a estimé que le TDT n'avait commis aucune erreur de droit ou de fait en concluant que les allégations de harcèlement sexuel et de harcèlement au travail avaient été prouvées selon la norme de la preuve claire et convaincante. Le TDT avait l'avantage de voir et d'entendre les témoignages des principaux témoins des événements et des événements connexes. Il y avait donc suffisamment de preuves pour confirmer les évaluations du TDT quant à la survenance et à l'importance des événements. Le TSDU était également en droit de conclure que l'AAO, dont les avances sexuelles avaient été repoussées...

Le TFP a estimé que le retard inexpliqué de près d'un an dans le dépôt de la demande d'interprétation était à lui seul suffisant pour que le TFP la rejette. Le TFP a en outre estimé que la demande d'interprétation était dépourvue de fondement juridictionnel. Le TFP a estimé que le fonctionnaire n'avait démontré aucune ambiguïté ni aucun manque de clarté dans le jugement.

L'UNAT a estimé que la demande d'exécution reposait sur le fait que le fonctionnaire avait obtenu que le jugement antérieur soit interprété de la manière qu'il souhaitait et que, par conséquent, sa demande d'exécution était...

L'UNAT a estimé que l'UNDT avait correctement conclu que le retard de 30 mois pris par l'ABCC dans le traitement de la demande d'indemnisation était excessif. Il a estimé qu'un délai raisonnable pour prendre une décision dans cette affaire n'aurait pas dû dépasser 24 semaines. Il a estimé que le retard supplémentaire de 24 mois et 13 jours, sans explication adéquate, était illégal et violait l'obligation de l'Administration de traiter les personnes à charge du fonctionnaire décédé de manière équitable et raisonnable.

En ce qui concerne l'indemnisation accordée, le TUNU a confirmé la décision...

The UNAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the UNAT to reject it. The UNAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The UNAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The UNAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member’s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The UNAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the ABCC’s 30-month delay in processing the claim for compensation was excessive. It found that a reasonable delay for decision-making in this claim would have been no more than 24 weeks. It held that the additional delay of 24 months and 13 days, without adequate explanation, was unlawful and violated the Administration’s duty to treat the dependents of the deceased staff member fairly and reasonably.

With respect to the compensation awarded, the UNAT affirmed the UNDT’s award of six months’ net base salary for moral harm. However, the...

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and was denied.

The UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the UNDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The UNDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the UNDT’s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The UNDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.