The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.
The UNAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It found that V01’s statements were consistent, detailed, coherent, credible and corroborated by the statements of her colleague. It held that the differences between the statements of V01 and her colleague were minor and had no bearing on the credibility or consistency of their testimonies. The UNAT found that the UNDT had properly concluded that the former staff member lacked credibility, highlighting that he waived his right to cross-examine V01 and her colleague.
The UNAT rejected the former staff members’ argument that his character...
The UNAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.
The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The UNAT held that the Dispute...
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.
In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ‘sexual molestation’, constitute ‘serious misconduct’ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.
Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...
The Applicant’s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.
In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the United Nations Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant’s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member’s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The UNAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.
The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The UNAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the UNDT.
In any event, the UNAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified UNDP as the respondent in the present case because it was UNDP that administered the staff member’s position and was therefore his employer. The UNAT found that the staff member’s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The UNAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036...
The Applicant having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, bad faith or improper motivation in the Respondent’s taking of the decision not to accept her request to withdraw her resignation, the application had to fail.
Had the Respondent not exercised his discretion to reject the Applicant’s request to withdraw her resignation, he would have been compelled to rescind selection decisions already communicated and accepted by three other staff members. This would have constituted a breach of the employment contracts of the three staff members. This breach would have...
The UNAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous UNAT judgment.
The UNAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the UNAT. The UNAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.
The UNAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...
