UNAT first explained that this is a case where the UNDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision‑maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision‑maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

UNAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, UNAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. UNAT thus found the UNDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years’ net base...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member. UNAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. UNAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the UNDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant UNAT’s intervention. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant’s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the UNDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration’s evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. UNAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. UNAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

On the issue of receivability, UNAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. UNAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. UNAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. UNAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. UNAT held that it had no reason to disagree with UNDT’s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract. UNAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant’s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. UNAT held that the Administration applied UNICEF’s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi’s favour. UNAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered – or even favoured for reasons of gender – in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by UNICEF during the selection process. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration’s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr’s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr’s complaints. UNAT held that, by virtue of the “dysfunctional” work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...