Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had provided no rule or precedent based contextual explanation to support his position. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had not provided any rational explanation for depriving the Applicant of the entitlements to increments afforded under GS Salary Scale 120b to those similarly circumstanced. Accordingly, the Tribunal:

a. Decided to rescind the contested decision;

b. Directed that the Applicant be recognised as having been in continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat from 3 May 1994 and, effective 22 February 2022...

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a.     Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;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 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 found that the application was  not receivable in respect to the five contested decsions in the Applicant's application. The Tribunal found that, inter alia,  the Applicant failed either to request management evaluation of a contested decision or because the Applicant’s management evaluation was time barred. With respect to contested decision 5, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant had failed to clearly identify a reviewable administrative decision. 

The UNAT noted that the staff member’s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent’s fees.

The UNAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant’s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request. 

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant’s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The UNAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week.  It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member’s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded.  The UNAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The UNAT also found no merit in the staff member’s argument that the lack of...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member’s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General’s submissions.

The UNAT also concluded that the UNDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI.  The UNAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his UNDT application and his management evaluation...