ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

/

UNAT first explained that this is a case where the UNDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision‑maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision‑maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

UNAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by UNDT. UNAT found no error of law or fact in the UNDT decision. UNAT held that UNDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. UNAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the UNDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by UNAT. UNAT...

UNAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the UNDT erred in concluding otherwise. UNAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. UNAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and UNDT erred in finding that the charge of...

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former UNAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-UNAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...

The decision communicated to the Applicant on 29 March 2019 presents essentially the relief sought by the Applicant in his application dated 4 March 2019 and while the Applicant is still insisting on clarification from the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe (RSCE) as to the basis for the impugned decision, this neither minimizes nor negates the fact that the administration acceded to his request and rescinded the impugned decision altogether. The Applicant has not tendered any particulars or evidence to support, prove and/or explain his allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and mental...

UNDT held that the principal legal issue arising for consideration in the case was whether the Applicant’s qualifications met the requirement of a recognized first level university degree as required by the job opening she was selected for. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements for positions at the P-2 level and was not eligible to be considered for a one-time amnesty for staff members under section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not demonstrate unfairness, unjustness, lack of transparency or inappropriate motive in...

When termination was the possible outcome of the investigation, each allegation of misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence; in other words, the truth of the facts asserted must have been highly probable. The only rule cited as applicable in this case referred to a blood alcohol level as a measure of intoxication. The Applicant was not subjected to a blood test. TheTribunal found that there was no clear or convincing evidence before the Respondent that the Applicant drove while intoxicated. There is no rule prohibiting United Nations staff from having a drink of alcohol...

The acts of sexual harassment committed by the Applicant were of such a persistent and offensive nature that in keeping with the Organization’s zero-tolerance policy he could not remain on the job. However, the Organization’s policy on care and support for persons suffering with mental illness was also clear. The Applicant’s behaviour was influenced by severe mental illness. The illness ought to have been addressed in a more timely and considerate manner by the Respondent by denying his clearance to return to work in March 2015 and in August 2016. He may then have retired due to ill-health...