Procedure (first instance and UNAT)

The UNAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant’s signature. The UNAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant’s dementia.

The UNAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant’s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The UNAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

The UNAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the UNDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The UNAT nevertheless noted that the staff member’s application filed with the UNDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the UNAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a UNDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The UNAT found that the staff member sought to...

The UNAT noted that the staff member’s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The UNAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member’s withdrawal of her resignation, and the UNDT’s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The UNAT held that the staff member’s resignation produced its legal...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The...

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member’s request for an oral hearing as the case record was “comprehensive” and there was “no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.”

The UNAT held that the staff member’s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the UNDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The UNDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the UNDT’s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The UNDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The UNRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency’s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT’s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10. As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.

The UNAT further...