Judgment

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. UNAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by UNRWA in tranche 2 list. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that the Appellant had...

UNAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of UNJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, UNAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. UNAT further...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. UNAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant’s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. UNAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant’s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or “initial payment”...

UNAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before UNDT was still pending. UNAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the UNDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by UNAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. UNAT found that UNDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-604 (Ocokoru). UNAT noted that in judgment 2015-UNAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the UNDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the execution of the UNDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of UNDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. UNAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. UNAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that...