UN Secretariat

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member’s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member’s UNJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

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.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that it was established that the former staff member diverted funds contributed to the United Nations Staff Union to support UN Staff Day to the United Nations Athletic Club (UNAC). The UNAT affirmed that even if the former staff member did not obtain personal gain, she misused her office for the private gain of a third party, the UNAC, which constituted misconduct.

The UNAT held that irrespective of what the former staff member’s work environment was like, it cannot justify misconduct.

The UNAT further held that any form of dishonest...

The UNAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The UNAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the UNAT found that her UN experience was used to disadvantage her. The UNAT also...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The...

The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant’s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.

The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant’s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, “OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action”.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Tribunal found the application to be receivable on the basis that a negative performance rating does produce legal consequences for the affected staff member and is reviewable.

In the Tribunal’s view, the Respondent failed to show that the USG engaged the Applicant in a proper performance discussion or provided sufficient feedback of a performance shortcoming as required by secs. 7.1, 7.2 and 10.1 of ST/AI/2021/4. he Tribunal found no evidence of a discussion between the USG and the Applicant which could be classified as a performance milestone discussion, one which sets out clear targets...