�山����

UNAT noted that the only issue on appeal was the issue of appropriate compensation for the unlawful contested decision.  UNAT found that the UNDT appropriately found that the requested compensation in the amount of two years’ net base salary was unwarranted as it would exceed the emoluments to which he would have been entitled absent the unlawful termination. UNAT found no merit in Mr. Kilauri’s contention that the UNDT failed to consider the nature and level of the post he formerly occupied and the chances of renewal beyond the expiry of his fixed-term contract but for his unlawful...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal regarding whether UNDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh’s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. UNAT noted that UNMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member’s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before UNDT to justify its findings of “moral injury”. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of “moral injury” without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Gido’s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly rejected Mr Gido’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held that Mr...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad’s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Garbo and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Garbo’s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly rejected the Appellant’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Hamdan and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Hamdan’s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject Hamdan’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held...

UNDT did not err in law or in fact when it found that the decision to abolish the post was lawful. However, in not providing reasons for its decision to commute the six-month notice period into compensation, the Organisation failed in its duty to demonstrate that its discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. The Administration failed to meet its burden to minimally demonstrate that the Appellant was given full and fair consideration. The Administration acted arbitrarily and thus failed to exercise its discretion lawfully. The termination of the Appellant’s...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-UNAT-692, and properly considered the Applicant’s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant’s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that UNKART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant’s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...