Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes’ appeal against the reclassification decision. UNAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. UNAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall’s conduct into question. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. UNAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by UNDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

UNAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 11.1 of the UNDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. UNAT held that UNDT’s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited UNDT from extending the deadline for...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT held that, in the present case, UNDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years’ net base salary. UNAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the UNDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. UNAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. UNAT held that, in the present case, UNDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years’ net base salary. UNAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the UNDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. UNAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

UNAT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as Ãå±±½ûµØstaff. UNAT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. UNAT...

UNAT held that UNDT’s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. UNAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. UNAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...

The Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Cabrera’s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT...