Compensation

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied Mr. Mezyed’s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed’s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, UNAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the UNRWA DT could not...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While UNAT found that it was reasonable for the UNDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the UNDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years’ net base salary. UNAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

UNAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the UNDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, UNAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the UNDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). UNAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...

UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted the staff member’s cross-appeal, in part. UNAT found that the UNDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member’s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour’s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT in Mr Dabbour’s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. UNAT held that there was nothing to indicate why UNRWA DT did...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant’s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant’s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration’s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. UNAT...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

Respondent’s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent’s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent’s motion.