ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant qu'il existait des preuves claires et convaincantes permettant d'¨¦tayer le fait que la requ¨¦rante avait abus¨¦ de son autorit¨¦ en intimidant un membre du personnel afin qu'il d¨¦pose une fausse plainte pour harc¨¨lement sexuel contre un autre membre du personnel. Le DT de l'UNRWA a examin¨¦ les t¨¦moignages contradictoires et ¨¦valu¨¦ la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ des t¨¦moins, avant de conclure que la requ¨¦rante avait un motif pour solliciter le d¨¦p?t de cette fausse plainte.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que la lettre du membre du personnel concernant sa retraite anticip¨¦e devait ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une lettre de d¨¦mission. L'UNAT a not¨¦ que quelques mois plus tard, elle avait envoy¨¦ une autre lettre ¨¤ l'Administration demandant le retrait de sa d¨¦mission. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le TFP n'avait pas commis d'erreur de droit en identifiant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision de ne pas accepter le retrait de la d¨¦mission de la fonctionnaire, et que l'approche du TFP ne lui avait pas caus¨¦ de pr¨¦judice puisqu'il avait pu examiner tous ses arguments.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la...

L'UNAT a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a estim¨¦ que le TFP avait correctement analys¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s, en motivant de mani¨¨re d¨¦taill¨¦e l'acceptation ou le rejet du t¨¦moignage de chaque t¨¦moin et, surtout, en tenant compte de l'aveu par le fonctionnaire de nombreux faits essentiels. Il s'agissait notamment de reconna?tre : l'existence de tensions entre lui-m¨ºme et les membres du personnel international et national ; qu'il ¨¦tait probablement trop exigeant en tant que sup¨¦rieur hi¨¦rarchique ; qu'il avait ¨¦lev¨¦ la voix au travail ; qu'il avait fait r¨¦f¨¦rence aux...

The UNAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The UNAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The UNAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

The UNAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The UNAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The UNAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the UNWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The UNAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first UNRWA DT Judgment.

The UNAT found that the staff...

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 contested decision was lawful. It held that the UNDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness¡¯s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member¡¯s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The UNAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior UNAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The UNAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the UNAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the UNAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The UNAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the UNAT Judgment was clear...

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 Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s UNJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

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...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire souffrait d'un probl¨¨me m¨¦dical n¨¦cessitant des soins qui avait une incidence sur sa capacit¨¦ ¨¤ reprendre le travail, qu'il avait consenti ¨¤ l'examen m¨¦dical ind¨¦pendant et qu'il n'avait pas contest¨¦ ces dossiers devant le TDPI ni en appel.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si la d¨¦cision ST/AI/2019/1 ¨¦tait applicable aux fonctionnaires du HCR ou consid¨¦r¨¦e comme un mod¨¨le de pratique ¨¦quitable, elle n'aurait pas rendu l'examen m¨¦dical ind¨¦pendant irr¨¦gulier.

L'UNAT n'a trouv¨¦ aucun motif pour infirmer la d¨¦cision de l'UNDT selon laquelle il n'y avait aucune preuve de...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que les ordonnances contest¨¦es rejetant les demandes d'anonymat du fonctionnaire avaient ¨¦t¨¦ rendues moins d'un mois apr¨¨s que le TFP ait fait droit ¨¤ sa demande d'anonymat dans une autre affaire.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les ordonnances contest¨¦es n'¨¦taient pas isol¨¦es et que l'interaction de toutes ces proc¨¦dures rendait la situation exceptionnelle. Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le fait de lui refuser l'anonymat pour ses deux demandes uniquement irait ¨¤ l'encontre de l'objectif de l'anonymat et que, dans les circonstances particuli¨¨res de cette proc¨¦dure, cette incoh¨¦rence portait atteinte ¨¤...

The UNAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the UNDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The UNAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The UNAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The UNAT...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the UNDT nor on appeal.

The UNAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to UNHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The UNAT found no basis to overturn the UNDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que, dans son traitement rigide des preuves relatives au comportement d'AAY, l'UNDT n'a pas tenu compte de ce qu'avait admis AAY lorsqu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ interrog¨¦ par le Bureau des services de contr?le interne. Le fait qu'AAY ait choisi de ne pas t¨¦moigner lors de l'audition de l'UNDT montre clairement qu'il s'en tient ¨¤ la d¨¦claration qu'il a faite aux enqu¨ºteurs du BSCI. L'UNDT ¨¦tait tenue de prendre en compte cette preuve incontest¨¦e de sa part dans son ¨¦valuation de la preuve de la faute commise ¨¤ son encontre, d'autant plus qu'il n'a pas choisi de t¨¦moigner...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que le changement de titre de l'ancienne fonctionnaire ¨¤ la suite d'un reclassement n'¨¦quivalait pas ¨¤ une abolition ou ¨¤ une suppression de son poste, ce qui rendait son licenciement ill¨¦gal.

Le TANU a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en accordant ¨¤ l'ancienne fonctionnaire une compensation en lieu et place de deux ann¨¦es de salaire de base net. ? cet ¨¦gard, le TANU a soulign¨¦ que le Tribunal avait correctement pris en compte le fait que l'engagement permanent de l'ancienne fonctionnaire...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur de fait, entra?nant une d¨¦cision manifestement d¨¦raisonnable, lorsqu'il a constat¨¦ qu'une d¨¦cision de licenciement avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 1er avril 2022. ? cet ¨¦gard, le TANU a constat¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de placer une note dans le dossier administratif de l'ancien fonctionnaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 1er avril 2022, mais que la d¨¦cision de licenciement avait en fait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 11 mars 2022. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU aurait d? identifier l'une ou l'autre d¨¦cision comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, mais il a commis une erreur en suivant l...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA avait conclu ¨¤ juste titre que M. Issa n'avait pas soumis dans les d¨¦lais une demande de r¨¦vision de d¨¦cision concernant le premier des trois mois de non-paiement de son salaire. Toutefois, le TANU a estim¨¦ que, puisque chaque non-paiement constitue une d¨¦cision administrative distincte, la demande de r¨¦vision de d¨¦cision de M. Issa concernant le non-paiement des deuxi¨¨me et troisi¨¨me mois a ¨¦t¨¦ introduite dans les d¨¦lais, ce qui rend sa demande partiellement recevable.

Le TANU a toutefois conclu que, puisque M. Issa n'a pas tenu compte d'une directive...