�鶹��ý

UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT’s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

UNAT considered the appeal and held that UNRWA DT’s judgment was correct. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency’s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. UNAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the UNRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. UNAT also held that UNRWA DT rightly rejected the...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant’s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. UNAT held that UNDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-UNAT-757) as it did. UNAT noted that in the Appellant’s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

UNDP had an obligation to its staff to make it clear that the time frame for making applications for ad hoc posts might be less than the two weeks period mandated for QUARRY positions. The respondent, by virtue of the settlement agreement, was obliged to comply, amongst other things, with the Guidelines for the Recruitment and Selection of UNDP Staff, especially since they dealt with the subject of the agreement, namely support for the applicant’s attempts to obtain another post. Where there was a particular duty to inform imposed by the settlement agreement and the failure to inform...

i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

Placing the Applicant on SLWFP. This Tribunal agrees with and adopts the Kamunyi reasoning that former staff rule 105.2 did not permit placing a staff member on SLWFP where an investigation was being made into possible wrong-doing by that staff member. The formal nature of the OIOS/PTF investigation. For an investigation to be regarded as merely preliminary in nature, some “reason to believe” must exist that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, but the investigation must not have reached the stage where the reports of misconduct are “well founded” and where a decision already...

Receivability: In light of the Respondent’s own arguments in this case, it should have been clear that the decision taken clearly falls within the type of decisions contemplated by art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute. This Tribunal has moved toward a less rigid and more purposive interpretation of what constitutes an administrative decision and parties should not fail to take into account the developing case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal. Incomplete applications: There may be cases where an application for sabbatical leave, while formally containing the documents and...

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s claims with regard to the issue of lien and loan were without merit. With respect to the issue of placement on special leave without pay, the UNDT found that the Applicant should have been placed on sick leave on half salary and half annual leave for a period of up to three months. The UNDT ordered the Respondent to make appropriate adjustments, including any related payments and adjustments to benefits and entitlements, to reflect the placement of the Applicant on three months of sick leave on half pay combined with half-day of annual leave commencing 22...