É«¿âTV

UNAT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant’s submission, UNAT held that UNDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the Administration had failed to provide a performance-related justification for its decision not to renew Mr Ncube’s fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that the decision not to renew Mr Ncube’s appointment had to be upheld despite the fact that his e-PAS suffered from procedural irregularities as it did not consider that the flaws rendered the appraisal unlawful or unreasonable. UNAT considered that the decision not to renew the appointment was justified because the Secretary-General proved that the...

UNAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal was receivable. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

On the issue of UNDT’s denial of the Appellant’s request for confidentiality, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. UNAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the UNAT Statute’s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. UNAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by UNDT...

UNAT held that the UNDT’s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, UNDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. UNAT...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

UNAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant’s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered the content of the Appellant’s appeal, the UNRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant’s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. UNAT found that the Appellant’s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT also held that there was no error in the UNRWA DT’s findings that the Administration’s decision not to confirm the Appellant’s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. UNAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the UNAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. UNAT also found that UNRWA DT’s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the UNRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. UNAT further noted that...