ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. UNAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. UNAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.

In reviewing the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. UNAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. UNAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB’s recommendation. UNAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. UNAT specifically held that the JAB’s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

On the issue of receivability, UNAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. UNAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. UNAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. UNAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

UNAT held that UNDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant’s retirement. UNAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. UNAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. UNAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months’ net base salary as compensation.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

UNAT addressed the staff member’s appeal seeking reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant’s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency’s extension of the Appellant’s...