UNIFIL

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member’s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO’s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The UNAT also found that the UNDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The UNAT held that the UNDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The UNDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The UNAT remanded the case to the UNDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the UNAT held that the UNDT had erred in the...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the UNDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness’s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member’s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

The UNAT held that the staff member had had ample opportunity to comment on her lateral transfer. The UNAT noted that she had been aware of the recommendation to separate her from her First Reporting Officer, against whom she had made a complaint of prohibited conduct, and had had the opportunity to voice her concerns and also had been informed of the reassignment decision nearly a month before she took up the new post.

The UNAT accepted that the responsibilities and job functions of the new post had been commensurate with the staff member’s competence, skills, and experience. The UNAT found...

The UNAT noted that the reclassification request was made by UNIFIL and not by the staff member.

The UNAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the UNDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The UNAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The UNAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member’s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant’s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.