Judicial review (general)

The UNAT noted that the Agency’s job classification tool had been used to reclassify the staff members’ posts. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had not erred when it had decided the case in the absence of the full document of the International Civil Service Commission’s “Master Standard for Classification”. The UNAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Classification Reports were relevant and sufficient for the UNRWA DT’s determinations.

The UNAT held that notwithstanding the various anomalies in the reclassification process, the staff members had failed to show anything specific that...

The UNAT found that beyond reporting the possible prohibited conduct concerning non-compliance with the United Nations financial rules and regulations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the staff member had no further interest in law in the conduct of the investigation or its outcome. The UNAT further agreed with the UNDT that there was no basis for his assertion that OIOS had declined to conduct an investigation into his report. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred in finding the application concerning this decision not receivable.

Regarding the staff member’s complaint...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.

Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.

Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.

Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization’s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).

The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well‑substantiated and in line with the...

The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant’s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent—General Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

UNAT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member’s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of UNDT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. UNAT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member’s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by UNDT. UNAT reversed the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP’s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh’s performance and exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT erred in...