2013-UNAT-281 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2013-UNAT-281, Pacheco

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of UNDT regarding the abolition of her post. UNAT recalled the broad discretion of UNDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of UNDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the truth. However, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy UNAT that the UNDT judgment had one or more of the five defects provided for in Article 2.1(a) to (e) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to abolish her post and separate her from service. UNDT rejected the application, finding that the Applicant had failed to present evidence that persuaded it that the abolition of post was manifestly unreasonable, motivated by ill-will or a calculated scheme to remove her from the office and that warranted the UNDT’s interference with the Respondent’s discretion.

Legal Principle(s)

An international organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. UNDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Pacheco

Entity

OCHA

Case Number(s)

2012-305

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York