������ҹ������

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the process leading to the imposition of the disciplinary measure was carried out in compliance with the UNDP Legal Framework for Addressing non-compliance with United Nations Standards of Conduct and the UNDP Office of Audit and Investigation Guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not deny or even challenge the fact that the Respondent had proved that she had: i...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant’s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant’s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged failures and shortcomings in the investigation process did not prejudice the Applicant’s case. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had discussed an amended procurement bid to enable LL to be awarded the procurement contract; that, as a result, the bid was fraudulently amended and with the Applicant’s acquiescence. Thus, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had...

UNAT held that an analysis of the e-mail and other correspondence between UNDP and the Appellant indicated that she could not have been led to believe that her home leave request for January 2020 would be granted. She had been advised that a staff member was entitled to home leave only if the staff member’s contract was anticipated to continue for more than six months after the return from home leave, yet Appellant’s continuing engagement with UNDP was unknown, and her current contract end date was June 30, 2020. UNAT held that UNDP complied with its obligations to consider and decide the...

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration’s appraisal of the Applicant’s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant’s claim that he was given “too many tasks too fast” as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that the...

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant was reckless in his failure to report a fraud which he was aware of. He chose to conceal and abet the perpetration of a fraud. The facts were established to the requisite standard by the Applicant’s own admissions and the evidence on record. The Tribunal held that the established facts clearly constituted misconduct as charged. The elements of the charge of abetting and concealing fraud were established through the evidence. The Applicant who had possession of important knowledge about fraudulent document passing through his office...

Receivability ratione materiae. The Applicant’s management evaluation request was not clear on whether he was making allegations of misconduct against his Supervisor, which would need to be dutifully investigated, or citing performance or management issues to be addressed by management. Similarly, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that the matter of lawfulness of the decision to place him on ALWP was ever formally contested by him. Hence, any determination against the decision not to further investigate the Applicant’s complaints of harassment against his supervisor or against his...

Whether the Administration provided a valid and fair reason for the contested decision In determining whether a valid and fair reason exists to terminate the Applicant’s appointment for unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will examine in turn the following issues: i. Whether the Applicant in fact failed to meet the performance standards; ii. Whether he was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required standards; iii. Whether he was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards; and iv. Whether termination of appointment is an appropriate action for...