UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction†when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination†excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.
UNAT affirmed UNDT’s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, UNAT reversed UNDT’s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...
UNAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the UNRWA DT judgment. UNAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant’s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT’s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. UNAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi’s...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by UNDT of three months’ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun’s career prospects. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun’s separation from service. UNAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...
UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. UNAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. UNAT...
UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. UNAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the Appellant’s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and UNRWA DT did not make such findings. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...
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...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal, requesting that the UNRWA DT judgment be vacated. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. UNAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of UNRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency’s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. UNAT found that there...
UNAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found no error in UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. UNAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. UNDT also noted that the review of the Appellant’s performance assessments...
