UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT noted that the vacancy had been advertised for only ten days which violated the mandatory requirement of the UNRWA Personnel Directive, and this violation had been corrected by cancelling the recruitment process and constituting another one that met the requirement of the minimum posting period.
The UNAT held that the staff member had not identified the alleged defects of the impugned Judgment but rather had reargued his case and, therefore, had not discharged his burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the impugned Judgment had been in error.
The UNAT was of the view that, in any event, the UNRWA DT had reasonably concluded that the delay in completing the recruitment exercise had not amounted to an illegality, and there was nothing in the appeal to constitute grounds for finding otherwise. The UNAT found that the Agency had not acted unfairly or unjustly as they were correcting a procedural violation and, in doing so, had acted with reasonable motivation and transparently. The UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that the Agency’s exercise of discretion in cancelling the recruitment process had been motivated by discrimination or bias against the staff member.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested a decision to cancel the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Chief Field Education Programme/Technical at the UNRWA Lebanon Field Office.
In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2024/006, the UNRWA DT dismissed the application on the merits.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue or relitigate his or her case. As such, a party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that failed before the lower court. The Appeals Tribunal’s role is to determine if the Dispute Tribunal made errors of fact or law, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Therefore, an appellant has the burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective. It follows that an appellant must identify the alleged defects in the impugned judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.
The cancellation of a recruitment process can be challenged on the grounds that the Agency did not act fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. The UNRWA DT reviews whether the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate but not whether the decision is correct, given the various courses of action open to the Commissioner-General.
Once the Agency has provided a reasonable motivation for the decision to cancel a recruitment process, the staff member has the burden of proving that such extraneous factors played a role in the decision.