Discretion

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT held that the fact that the UNDT might have repeated some or most of the Respondent’s arguments and language in its judgment would not be sufficient to undermine the UNDT’s considerations or determinations.

Regarding the scope of the appeal, the UNAT held that since the remedy claimed in the appeal does not aim for the rescission of the reassignment, but the placement into a P-5 or D-1 post commensurate with the Appellant’s skills, training, qualifications, and experience for which she has applied and which was not the subject of her initial application, the...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/030.

UNAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj’s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) […] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. UNAT held that UNDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. UNAT held that UNAT’s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. UNAT held that UNDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva’s terms and conditions of...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before UNDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, UNAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of UNDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its judgment, although UNAT differed in its reasoning. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the UN. UNAT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. UNAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member’s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member’s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. UNAT held that, in Ms Rees’ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. UNAT held...

UNAT held that the Appellant had accepted the conditions of the RLA, which stated that “the loaned employee shall return to the releasing agency upon completion or termination of his assignment with UNAMID and that no offer of continuing employment shall be made to him by UNAMID without consulting the releasing agency”. UNAT held that the Appellant had had a valid employment contract with WFP, and he did not fulfil the conditions for termination under that same agreement. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not formally initiate the transfer procedure and/or termination. UNAT held that UNDT had...

UNAT rejected Mr Gehr’s contention that the restructuring, although a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion, had been carried out arbitrarily to marginalize him. In accordance with paragraph 2. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in its report, advised the Executive Director to conduct a functional review of all UNODC divisions, sections and units, and align them to the reconfirmed prioritized framework for action of the Office, including by reorienting human and financial resources if necessary. The JIU further recommended that the Executive Director take measures to...

UNAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. UNAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with UNDT’s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before UNDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how UNDT erred in...

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, UNAT noted that these matters had been...