äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

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 former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

The UNAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and ¡°non decisions¡± concerning the processing of her claim.

The UNAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The UNAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

The UNAT found that the UNDT relied very significantly on its assessment of the former staff member¡¯s credibility in giving his oral evidence before it, disbelieving him strongly and almost entirely.However, it held that this was not balanced against any similar assessment of the complainants¡¯ credibility, particularly where their accounts of the facts conflicted with those of the former staff member. The UNAT emphasized that there was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either the former staff member¡¯s counsel or the UNDT Judge, which was particularly significant given...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

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 UNAT noted that in its prior Judgment the UNAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The UNAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The UNAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The UNAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the UNDT was obliged to consider.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

Concerning the receivability of Ms. Janakiram¡¯s request for review, the UNATheld that only the 7 October 2024 decision rejecting her claim constituted a reviewable decision, as it applied to her individually and directly affected her rights as a beneficiary. By contrast, it found that the Fund¡¯s 8 July 2010 letter was neither addressed to Ms. Janakiram nor concerned the same subject: it was addressed to the late participant and informed him that the Fund could not recognize his second marriage for the purpose of pension entitlements. The UNAT held that the letter therefore had no direct legal...

The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration¡¯s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to ¡°analyze the facts¡± and ¡°ask...

The UNAT found that the UNDT committed an error of law by misapplying the jurisprudence on anonymization and, in particular, by failing to consider the nature of the matter before it and its impact on the former staff member, as well as by failing to distinguish between the different considerations applicable to the anonymization of the identity of perpetrators, as opposed to complainants or witnesses.

The UNAT observed that the former staff member was a complainant in respect of alleged sexual misconduct and, accordingly, the allegations raised by her were of a uniquely sensitive and...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration¡¯s stated reason for the non-renewal was supported by the facts, i.e. the expiration of a grant that funded Mr. Musambai's appointment. Furthermore, the UNDT correctly held that, once the Administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.

Turning to Mr. Musambai¡¯s argument that other staff members continued receiving salaries...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.In this regard, the UNAT observed that UNICEF Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT Judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore, contrary to the former staff member¡¯s contention, not in proximity to the Judge.It further found that the fact that the Judge did not keep her camera on at all times during the hearing did not demonstrate that she was not appropriately...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in finding that Ms. Johnson-Simmons¡¯s claim to compensation for unpaid taxes not receivable, as not only did Ms. Johnson-Simmons fail to identify the contested administrative decision regarding reimbursement for income tax payments, but she also admitted that she did not submit the matter for management evaluation, and there was no indication that she had paid any taxes.

The UNAT found that Ms. Johnson-Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed relevant information about her changed residency status from the Organization, and she also willfully...

The UNAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the UNDT. The UNAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The UNAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The UNAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The UNAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The UNAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund¡¯s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The UNAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The UNAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The UNAT concluded that the...