UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. UNAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge UNDT’s finding that there was no administrative decision within UNDT’s jurisdiction being contested. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. UNAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant’s contention, UNDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. UNAT found that UNDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...
UNAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before UNDT. However, UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the UNDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.
UNAT held that the Appellant’s application was submitted to UNDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims that the UNDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...
On the Appellant’s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, UNAT did not find that UNDT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and UNDT’s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. UNAT held that there was no error by UNDT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding...
UNAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. UNAT held that, as the Appellant’s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. UNAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
UNAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...
UNAT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, UNAT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-531, as UNAT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist UNAT with its consideration on the merits. By way of...
UNAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, UNAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. UNAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the UNAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. UNAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...
UNAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of UNAT’s competence. UNAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...
