Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman’s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General’s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT’s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman’s amended Motion of...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT then considered the Appellant’s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. UNAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP’s Harassment Policy. UNAT also held that UNDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

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 the Secretary-General’s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. UNAT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. UNAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management’s (OHRM) advocacy and information...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT found no merit to the Appellant’s claims that UNDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member’s property. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner’s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

UNAT held that UNDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that UNDT’s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. UNAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. UNAT held that the misconduct had been established...

UNAT had before it the Secretary-General’s appeal against judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and UNDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). UNAT held that there was no reason to upset the UNDT’s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. UNAT held, affirming UNDT’s finding, that the Applicant’s application was receivable by UNDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with UNICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, UNAT...