Search
The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.
The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.
The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...
Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.
The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.
In...
The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.
In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:
a. Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;
b. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and
c. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said...
The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant’s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.
The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.
As to the...
The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.
For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.
Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...
The Tribunal found no merit in the application. In particular, the Tribunal found no grounds for the Applicants’ claim that the contested decisions were unlawful or that they were subject to gender discrimination. The Tribunal found that neither Applicant qualified for sec. 6.3(a)(i) parental leave by operation of sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2, which set a cutoff date of 1 January 2023, nor did they qualify for the 10 weeks special leave under the transitional measures since they did not give birth and were not on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. The Tribunal found that since the Applicants did...
The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.
The UNAT noted that when the staff member had moved to North Carolina, he had not enquired whether or not he was obligated to pay the income tax of that state. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General had erred in applying a one-year time limit to his request for reimbursement of his North Carolina state income tax for 2015-2018.
The UNAT considered the language of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, interpretative doctrines, the legal regime of staff assessment, the hierarchy of the relevant norms and the apparent intent of the General Assembly. The UNAT...
At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.
The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...
The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an “equivalent certification”. In the present case, the UNDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...
The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.
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 Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the UNDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a “management evaluation request”. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission’s Chief of Staff, constitutes “management evaluation” for the purposes of proceedings before the UNDT. It does not.
The UNAT held that the staff member had had ample opportunity to comment on her lateral transfer. The UNAT noted that she had been aware of the recommendation to separate her from her First Reporting Officer, against whom she had made a complaint of prohibited conduct, and had had the opportunity to voice her concerns and also had been informed of the reassignment decision nearly a month before she took up the new post.
The UNAT accepted that the responsibilities and job functions of the new post had been commensurate with the staff member’s competence, skills, and experience. The UNAT found...
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified UNDP as the respondent in the present case because it was UNDP that administered the staff member’s position and was therefore his employer. The UNAT found that the staff member’s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The UNAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036...
The UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The UNAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The UNAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the UNDT’s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The UNAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...
The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...
The UNAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the UNDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The UNAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General’s contention was that the UNDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.
Nonetheless, the UNAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply...