�鶹��ý

The Applicant failed to identify disputed facts for which the proposed testimony is relevant. Even assuming the facts as alleged by the Applicant regarding her future claims, it was clear that each decision would rise or fall on its own merits. Directing the Applicant to file new claims in the case would cause undesirable delay in disposing of the case.

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant’s First Reporting Officer’s (“FRO”) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of “Successfully Meets Expectations”, the comments of the Applicant’s Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant “consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively” and commending her “ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation and the subject matter complained of does not include an administrative decision. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the final non-selection decision, which was required to contest it. She only requested management evaluation of the decision not to invite her to a competency-based interview.

The Applicant seeks to contest a preliminary step in a selection process, which can only be challenged in the context of a final selection decision. It is a premature contestation of...

At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant’s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant’s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.

In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before UNDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, UNAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of UNDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its judgment, although UNAT differed in its reasoning. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant’s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the UNDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration’s evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. UNAT held that UNDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant’s...

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-UNAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. UNAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

UNAT held that the nature of the contested decision before UNDT was not entirely clear. On the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, UNAT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the UNDT judgment on this point. UNAT held that UNDT failed to deal with the Appellant’s claim of harassment and discrimination. UNAT held that the Appellant’s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...