�山����

The application fails in its entirety.

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant damages equivalent to three months’ net base salary at the P-3 level. The compensation shall bear interest at the United States of America prime rate with effect from the date this Judgment becomes executable until payment of said compensation. An additional five per cent shall be applied to the United States of America prime rate 60 days from the date the Judgment becomes executable.

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation. 

UNAT held that the Administration’s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo’s terms or conditions of appointment.

UNAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process.  Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT’s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation “which he heard from another person who attended court” and that Section 4.1 of  ST/AI/2017/1 “does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member”. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal held that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that any distress caused to the Applicant was a result of the failure to resolve the harassment complaint and therefore an essential link in the requirement to prove moral damages had not been established by the evidence. The Tribunal noted that the finding that there was abuse of power was not based on an administrative act which was part of the Applicant’s application. The Applicant claimed that the delay was part of the harassment meted out by the Administration. However, she never provided evidence to link the...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s procedural fairness rights were respected throughout the investigation and the disciplinary process. The Applicant was interviewed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services and was provided with an audio-recording of the interview. He was provided all supporting documentation, was informed of the allegations against him, his right to seek the assistance of counsel and he was provided the opportunity to comment on the allegations; and his comments were duly considered. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had demonstrated that the investigation and the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction were conducted in accordance with the applicable legal framework and investigation guidelines. The Applicant was interviewed and was provided with an audio-recording of the interview, and all supporting documentation. He was informed of the allegations against him and afforded his right to seek the assistance of counsel. He was provided the opportunity to comment on the allegations, and his comments were duly...

Based on the facts as presented in the application, the Tribunal determined two issues; (i) whether the Applicant was forced to retire, and (ii) whether the decision not to renew her FTA beyond 30 June 2021 was lawful. On issue one, the Tribunal held that based on the separation notice given to the Applicant dated 18 May 2021, read together with the Applicant’s letter of appointment and the evidence produced by the MONUSCO Chief of Human Resources during the hearing, there is no doubt that hers was a case of non-renewal of appointment. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant was not forced...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months’ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months’ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent’s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...