Enable track changes for UNDT pronouncements
The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant’s First Reporting Officer’s (“FRO”) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of “Successfully Meets Expectations”, the comments of the Applicant’s Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant “consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively” and commending her “ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...
The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the United Nations System, is “serving with the United Nations Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment” for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of UNICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in UNEP (part of the Secretariat).
Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of...
The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.
In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing “non...
Regarding claim 1, the Tribunal held that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that could prove any form of misconduct against the OIOS or UNIFIL officials who handled his complaint. Accordingly, claim 1 was rejected.
For claim 2, the Tribunal noted that, upon his request, via emails dated 22 August 2024 and 31 October 2024, the OIOS provided the Applicant with an explanation for the closure of his Complaint without investigation. Therefore, claim 2 was found to be moot.
Claim 3 was found not receivable. The Tribunal held that the outcome of a management...
L'UNAT a estimé que le DT de l'UNRWA avait correctement évalué l'application par l'Agence des exigences en matière d'expérience applicables aux requérants. Plus précisément, en ce qui concerne les enseignants contestant leur classement au grade 9, l'UNAT a souscrit à l'examen par le DT de l'UNRWA de la description du poste de personnel régional, qui exigeait cinq ans d'expérience dans l'enseignement au grade 9 pour être classé au grade 10. Les requérants classés au grade 9 ne remplissant pas cette condition, l'UNAT a estimé que le DT de l'UNRWA avait correctement conclu qu'ils étaient classés...
L'UNAT a noté que les conclusions du TDPI reposaient sur des preuves crédibles lorsqu'il a déterminé que le fils de la fonctionnaire avait contracté la Covid-19, qu'il avait été traité sous la supervision de son médecin traitant et que le paiement avait été effectué sur la base des factures de ce dernier reflétant les soins qu'il avait prodigués.
L'UNAT a estimé qu'à la lumière des témoignages des témoins de la fonctionnaire, y compris elle-même et le professionnel de santé qui avait traité son fils, le TDPI n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Administration n'avait pas établi la...
a. Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence on record, the Organization terminated the Applicant’s appointment under staff rule 9.6(c) due to the abolishment of the post that he encumbered. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Applicant’s permanent appointment on the basis of abolishment of his post was procedurally proper and lawful.
b. On the second issue, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence before it, the Organization had fulfilled its obligation under staff rule 9.6(c) to make reasonable and good...
L'UNAT a estimé que l'UNDT avait agi correctement en procédant à un contrôle juridictionnel de l'affaire.
Il a conclu que l'UNDT avait correctement évalué la crédibilité des témoins qui avaient témoigné devant lui et s'était fondé à juste titre sur le témoignage crédible de Mme V, qui n'avait aucun motif de mentir, pour conclure qu'il avait été établi par des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'ancien membre du personnel l'avait harcelée sexuellement en tenant des propos à caractère sexuel en mai et décembre 2020. Si le témoignage de Mme V aurait été suffisant en soi dans ce contexte, le...
The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.
Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.
The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...