Â鶹´«Ã½

The UNAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the UNDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the UNAT’s deference to the UNDT in such matters, the UNAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.

There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the UNAMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...

The fact that the Applicant accepted a lower level post did not make his application moot. The Administration failed to fulfil its obligation to offer available positions at the same level of the abolished post. The Applicant sustained and continues to sustain a relevant loss of salary because the Administration failed to make good faith efforts to place him in one of the positions that he applied to at the P-5 level, positions for which he was duly qualified. The Administration also failed to meet its obligation to reassign the Applicant as a matter or priority to another post matching his...