Â鶹´«Ã½

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯UNAT a acc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ la demande d¡¯anonymat d¡¯AAM. Consid¨¦rant que le jugement contenait des d¨¦tails m¨¦dicaux concernant AAM, l'UNAT a jug¨¦ n¨¦cessaire de prot¨¦ger ses informations confidentielles.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il y avait quatre questions ¨¤ trancher en appel : 1) la question de savoir si l¡¯appel d¡¯AAM ¨¦tait th¨¦orique/pr¨¦matur¨¦ ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re d¡¯une d¨¦cision m¨¦dicale en cours ; 2) si le Tribunal a commis une erreur en concluant que le Contr?leur avait le pouvoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ de rejeter la demande d¡¯indemnisation d¡¯AAM au titre de l¡¯Annexe D ; 3) si le Tribunal a commis une...

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT granted AAM¡¯s request for anonymity. Considering that the Judgment set out medical details regarding AAM, the UNAT found it necessary to protect his confidential information.

The UNAT found that there were four issues for adjudication on appeal: 1) whether AAM¡¯s appeal was moot/premature in light of a pending medical determination; 2) whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Controller had the delegated authority to deny AAM¡¯s claim for compensation under Appendix D; 3) whether the UNDT erred in finding that the decision of the Controller was reasonable...

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision disciplinaire de mani¨¨re approfondie et m¨¦thodique ; le Tribunal n¡¯a pas commis d¡¯erreur de fait ou de droit en proc¨¦dant ¨¤ l¡¯analyse de proportionnalit¨¦ et il n¡¯y a eu aucune irr¨¦gularit¨¦ dans l¡¯enqu¨ºte et la proc¨¦dure disciplinaire justifiant une intervention.

L'UNAT a convenu que l'obligation de ne pas divulguer d'informations internes ne se limite pas aux informations confidentielles. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si la fonctionnaire exer?ait des fonctions de liaison avec les...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT avait exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire pour proc¨¦der par jugement sommaire, sans examiner le fond de l'affaire, de mani¨¨re l¨¦gale et appropri¨¦e. Elle a estim¨¦ que de cette mani¨¨re, la DT de l'UNRWA avait agi non seulement conform¨¦ment aux principes d'¨¦conomie et d'efficacit¨¦ judiciaires, mais ¨¦galement dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt d'un r¨¨glement rapide de l'affaire. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant a re?u la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e le 3 novembre 2009 et a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande aupr¨¨s du DT de l'UNRWA le 12 ao?t 2022. Il ¨¦tait donc ¨¦vident qu'il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa...

L¡¯UNAT a d¡¯abord rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Guenfoudi.

L'UNAT a conclu qu'en tant que membre de longue date du Secr¨¦tariat, M. Guenfoudi ¨¦tait conscient des normes de performance requises pour sa fonction de traducteur verbatim. L'UNAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ qu'il avait eu une possibilit¨¦ ¨¦quitable de rem¨¦dier ¨¤ ses lacunes en mati¨¨re de performances, mais il a refus¨¦ de participer aux deux plans d'am¨¦lioration des performances. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le cadre juridique de l¡¯Organisation indiquait clairement que le licenciement ¨¦tait une mesure pr¨¦visible apr¨¨s deux ann¨¦es cons¨¦cutives de...

The UNAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The UNAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The UNAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The UNAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

The UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the UNRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The UNAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the UNRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the UNDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.

The UNAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information. The UNAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

L'UNAT a jug¨¦ que, en vue du dossier de cas, la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e ¨¦tait la d¨¦cision de ne pas reclassifier le poste du membre du personnel, qui a ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦ ¨¤ l'appelant dans une r¨¦ponse d¨¦finitive et sans ambigu?t¨¦ le 9 juillet 2019.

Les lettres ult¨¦rieures ¨¤ l'appelant n'¨¦taient que des r¨¦it¨¦rations uniquement de cette d¨¦cision. L'UNRWA DT avait raison de conclure que l'appelant n'a pas soumis de demande de r¨¦vision en temps opportun, comme requis avant de d¨¦poser sa demande aupr¨¨s de l'UNRWA DT, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que M. Abu Heija n'avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande de r¨¦vision de la...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'UNAT a d'abord jug¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur en droit dans l'application r¨¦troactive de la r¨¨gle 193.3 (c) r¨¦troactivement lorsqu'elle a examin¨¦ son droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. Au moment o¨´ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e a ¨¦t¨¦ prise, seuls les r¨¨glements et r¨¨gles du personnel de l'OMM 2019 ¨¦taient en vigueur et auraient d? ¨ºtre appliqu¨¦s. L'UNDT a fait une erreur dans l'application de la loi 2020 en fonction de la soumission par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de la mauvaise version des r¨¦glementations et r¨¨gles de l'OMM ¨¤ l'UNDT. L'UNAT a confirm¨¦ la conclusion...

Les unis ont confirm¨¦ les conclusions de l'UNDT selon lesquelles (1) quatre des six incidents sous-jacents ¨¤ l'environnement de travail hostile contre l'appelant n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis, mais que deux incidents ¨¦taient; et (2) l'appelant avait ill¨¦galement interf¨¦r¨¦ avec un exercice de recrutement qui a ¨¦galement cr¨¦¨¦ un environnement de travail hostile. L'inat a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de l'appelant selon laquelle, parce que les UNT consid¨¦raient que certaines actions n'¨¦taient pas du harc¨¨lement, elles ne pouvaient pas constituer une faute. Alors que certains commentaires de l'appelant sur la...

The UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The UNAT rejected appellant¡¯s contention that because the UNDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...

The UNAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The UNRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the UNRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The UNAT first held that the UNDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The UNDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General¡¯s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the UNDT.

The UNAT affirmed the UNDT's finding that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...