51³Ô¹Ï

UNRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. UNAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

UNAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to UNDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, UNAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. UNAT agreed with the finding of UNDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s appeal was filed on time and was receivable. UNAT held that, since the parties agreed to and identified the facts in their Joint Statement, it was not open to UNDT to conduct its own evaluation and then to substitute its view for that of the parties. UNAT held that the misconduct was of a grave and serious nature and in those circumstances, the sanction of separation was reasonable and not disproportionate and/or arbitrary. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it reversed the Secretary-General’s decision to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT set out the correct legal framework, but thereafter erroneously reviewed the evidence and interfered with the administrative discretion, since UNRWA had established the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in its evaluation of the evidence and that UNRWA had established the existence of the facts warranting disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that the procedure and the subsequent decision were lawful and there was no basis to rescind the termination or to award any...

UNAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. UNAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in concluding that the imposed disciplinary sanction was disproportionate and consequently substituting it for a lesser one. UNAT held that serious misconduct was established and the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity was proportionate. UNAT noted that the misconduct put public health at risk as the food was distributed with altered expiration dates to hide the fact of its expiration. UNAT held that the imposed sanction was neither absurd nor disproportionate and...

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by UNDT had to be vacated. UNAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Cobarrubias was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate. UNAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s broad discretion in disciplinary matters, with which it would not lightly interfere. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr Rajan’s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. UNAT held that the UNDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. UNAT held that it was Mr Rajan’s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it concluded that the Administration’s decision was unlawful and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the behaviour triggering it. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it ordered rescission of the sanction and compensation in lieu thereof and substituted the sanction imposed for a lesser one. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had broad discretion to determine whether the assault amounted to serious misconduct and to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure. UNAT held...