51�Թ�

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The...

The UNAT held that UNITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member’s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/UNITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. UNITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member’s position. The UNDT did not err in finding that UNITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The UNAT also affirmed the UNDT’s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The UNAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The UNAT held that the Administration’s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration’s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The UNAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member’s post. The UNAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The UNAT found that the former staff member’s dissatisfaction with the UNDT’s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The UNAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General’s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The UNAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member’s request for an oral hearing as the case record was “comprehensive” and there was “no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.”

The UNAT held that the staff member’s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member’s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member’s UNJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.