UNAT agreed with UNDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a “disguised terminationâ€. UNAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.
The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. UNAT disagreed and found that staff members should be “retained†in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years’ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, UNAT found because...
UNAT agreed with UNDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the UNDT finding that the staff member’s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. UNAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member’s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. UNAT further agreed with UNDT that the staff member had the...
The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant’s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.
Article 2 first confers the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to determine, in any application filed by an individual before it, whether the contested decision is an “administrative decision†and whether it was made in compliance with or contrary to an individual’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. In other words, it is for the Tribunal to determine, inter alia, in any given case, whether a contested decision qualifies as an “administrative decision†or not. As a matter of law and practice, a “friend-of-court†brief is a legal position on the issues for determination before the...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations, but rather a member of UN police force (UNPOL), which was an international law enforcement entity separately administered outside the UN Secretariat. The Tribunal therefore, held that in view of the established law, articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal was not competent to entertain it. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as non-receivable.
Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...
The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation’s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...
The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant’s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.
Harassment: The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s actions in sending caustic emails and nude photographs of Ms. M, a MONUC staff member he had dated, to other United Nations staff members at their official United Nations email addresses and to their private email addresses constituted harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5 in that the emails sought to belittle, humiliate and embarrass Ms. M and to compromise her reputation in a professional context. Proportionality of the sancton: The Tribunal held that the sanction was proportionate due to the fact that the Applicant’s conduct on...
