2018-UNAT-855

2018-UNAT-855, Salem

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT referred to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the UNRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. UNAT further found no fault in UNRWA DT’s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to issue a disciplinary measure against a former staff member. UNAT also held that UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s contentions do not demonstrate that the justification provided for the non-renewal decision by the Commissioner-General was a false one. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s position was to be restructured and reclassified with effect from 1 January 2017 and there were no funds to simultaneously uphold her current position; consequently, it was only possible to extend her LDC until the end of 2016. UNAT further noted that, as her position was to be restructured, an extension of her current appointment beyond 31 December 2016 was not possible for budgetary reasons, and the Appellant had declined the offer of an extension until the end of the year, UNRWA DT did not err when finding that the Administration’s decision was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to extend her LDC for only two months and 10 days instead of six months. UNRWA DT was satisfied with the justification for the decision provided by the Commissioner-General, namely that there was a change in the source of funding for the Applicant’s post. UNRWA DT further considered, in light of the Applicant’s positive Performance Evaluation Report, that the contested decision did not constitute an act of retaliation following her complaint against the PMO. UNRWA DT accordingly dismissed the application in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has broad discretion whether or not to conduct disciplinary investigations against a staff member. Only under special circumstances may a staff member request that such investigations be undertaken against another staff member.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief was ordered.

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

Salem

Entity

UNRWA

Case Number(s)

2018-1144

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York