OAJ Categories

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non‑selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member’s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member’s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The UNAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the UNAT held that her request was...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first‑instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60‑day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The UNAT found that the UNDT committed an error of law by...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case‑management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the UNDT’s broad case‑management discretion.

The UNAT found that the UNDT...

The UNAT held that the former staff member’s application before the UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The UNAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the UNAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant’s senior role.

The UNAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate’s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that “properly issued”...