MINUSCA

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The UNAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the UNDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane’s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

The record demonstrated that the Applicant refused to complete her supervisees’ performance evaluation and delayed the contract extension process. The Applicant refused to perform key managerial functions.

While it may be true that she was not given an opportunity to explain her actions, the remedies under section 10.1 ST/AI/2010/5 are only aimed at rectifying performance short comings and are not punitive. It was therefore not necessary to conduct some form of investigation in which a staff member would be required to explain her actions. 

While the Applicant had a duty and a right to...

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant’s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

The Tribunal held that tax reimbursement is governed by a specific and unique legal regime carefully deliberated upon by the General Assembly. Staff regulation 3.3(f) cannot be read into “other payments” in staff rule 3.17(ii).

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant’s understanding that payments under staff rule 3.17(ii) relate to all staff and all nationalities of the United Nations and are not restricted only to USA citizens as in the case for reimbursement of income tax under staff regulation 3.3(f). Hence, the two cannot be read together or have same application.

The Tribunal also agreed...

The UNAT held that the award for compensation in lieu of rescission included the additional cost incurred by the staff member in maintaining two households as a result of the contested decision.

The UNAT found that, given the application for interpretation, it was reasonable for the Administration to await the Appeals Tribunal’s interpretation. However, the Secretary-General is ordered to fully execute the original Judgment and pay to the staff member USD 450 within 30 calendar days from the issuance of the current judgment.

The UNAT noted that, given the delay in execution and in the...

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a “staff member”. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.