Judgment-related matters

The UNAT noted that the UNRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.

The UNAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The UNAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the UNRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal...

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and was denied.

The UNAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the UNAT to reject it. The UNAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The UNAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The UNAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member’s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The UNAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The UNAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member’s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The UNAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The UNAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the UNWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The UNAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first UNRWA DT Judgment.

The UNAT found that the staff...

The UNAT rejected Mr. Salon’s argument that the prior UNAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The UNAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the UNAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the UNAT Statute’s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The UNAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the UNAT Judgment was clear...

The UNAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the UNAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General’s calculation of two years’ net base salary was appropriate.

The UNAT further held that the deductions made for...

The UNAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri’s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri’s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The UNAT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the UNAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The UNAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.

The UNAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the UNAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The UNAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The UNAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The UNAT noted furthermore that the applicant’s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the UNAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the UNAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the UNAT granted in...