The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA’s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant’s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.
Receivability
The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.
First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with UNDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.
Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member’s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.
The UNAT also determined that the UNDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years’ net base salary. In this regard, the UNAT emphasized that the UNDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member’s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...
The UNAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the UNAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The UNAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...
The UNAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the UNAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.
The UNAT emphasized that the Administration’s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member’s position from...
As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Wan's argument that he had been placed at a considerable disadvantage, directly impacting the outcome of the case, by the fact that he had been unrepresented before the ICAO Appeals Board.
Turning to the merits of the case, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Appeals Board that on clear and convincing evidence two counts of misconduct had been proved to have been committed by Mr. Wan which justified the imposition of the sanction of dismissal. On the material presented by the Secretary-General to the President, the...
The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration’s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev’s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an UNRWA staff member.
Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT’s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev’s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev’s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...
The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the UNDT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.
The UNDT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead’s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years.The UNDT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...
As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.
The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu’s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization’s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.
Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...
The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The UNAT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...
