äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.

The UNAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The UNAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The UNAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the UNDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The UNAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the UNDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The UNAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The UNAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the UNDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The UNAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the UNDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The UNAT held that the Secretary-General had not implicitly withdrawn delegated authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) when the Chef de Cabinet sought advice from the USG/DMSPC.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the USG/DMSPC reasonably rejected the report of the March 2020 Alternate Chair. The UNAT affirmed that the Administration was empowered impliedly to decline to act on a report that it considered as having exceeded its authorized parameters. Moreover, the UNAT concluded that the USG/DMSPC had the...

The UNAT concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that two periods of delay in addressing the former staff member¡¯s complaints was not evidence of bias against her. The UNAT held that delay alone is not indicative of bias.

The UNAT further held that the former staff member¡¯s claims related to a certain press release had been decided by prior Tribunal judgments and could not be relitigated.

The UNAT also found that the UNDT correctly confirmed that the establishment of the fact-finding Panel, its process of fact-finding and reporting, and its interactions with the former staff member as...

The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the UNDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The UNAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The UNAT observed that the evidence before the UNDT was that the decision was...

The UNAT found that the written witness statement sought to be submitted constituted new and additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT found that it was apparent that the staff member had known of the evidence at the Dispute Tribunal but, as he noted in his motion and appeal brief, had relied on other grounds which he believed were sufficient to substantiate his claims without risking exposing the witness. The UNAT held that this rendered his request to submit additional evidence on appeal inadmissible. The UNAT denied the motion for leave to submit a confidential witness statement.

The transitional measure under the new parental leave scheme grants an additional 10 weeks of SLWFP to staff members who were already on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. This measure was created to facilitate the transition from the previous parental leave scheme to the new one, and to enable equity and fairness in the treatment of staff members who became parents by giving birth. The Applicant, however, had exhausted her maternity leave entitlements and was instead on annual leave on 1 January 2023.

The Tribunal found no merit in her argument that she should be considered as still on...