äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the UNDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the UNDT.

The UNDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the UNDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The UNAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The UNAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The UNAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The UNAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

The UNAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the UNDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The UNDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The UNAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the UNAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on UNAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The UNAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The UNAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The UNAT observed that the former staff member...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The UNAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The UNAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the UNAT observed that the...