Legal services (OSLA or other) and self-representation

The UNAT held that the ICAO Appeals Board implemented internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.  It found that the Appeals Board no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ICAO Secretary General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process.  It further found that while it might have been open to ICAO to consider using the UNDT for resolution of staff member disputes, it was free not to do so and cannot be criticised for doing as it did.  It concluded that the Appeals Board’s...

The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli’s cross-appeal in part.  The UNAT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the UNDT was “pointless” since by the time the case had reached the UNDT, Mr. Rolli’s post had been abolished. The UNAT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision.  The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be...

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 of judgment No. UNDT/2011/179. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. UNAT noted that UNDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

UNAT considered Ms Worsley’s appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA’s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. UNAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA’s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that UNDT previously considered in its judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. UNAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. UNAT held that UNDT...

Noting that UNDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. UNAT found no fault with UNDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA’s decision were...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant’s claim that the items were “garbage”, UNAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant’s claim that UNDT failed to fully assess...

In the present case, the Applicant, who was advised by OSLA that his case lacked legal merit and who nevertheless could be represented by a counsel of his choice before the Tribunal, cannot claim that his due process rights were violated. The Tribunal reiterates that a fixed-term appointment carries no expectancy of renewal. However, the Judge must examine whether the Administration’s actions may have created a legitimate expectation of renewal and whether the decision not to renew the appointment was motivated by extraneous factors. In the present case, the decision not to renew the Applicant...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent’s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY” (emphasis in the original). The indication “for settlement purposes only” in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant’s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the UNDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with UNDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...