Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that there was no fault with the UNDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that UNDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. UNAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings UNAT would not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held the UNDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. UNAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of UNDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that UNDT had the inherent power to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held the UNDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. UNAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of UNDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that UNDT had the inherent power to...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by UNDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure UNDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the UNAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. UNAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. UNAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. UNDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The UNAT...

UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...

UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. UNAT found that the UNDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

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 finds that the decision to summarily dismiss the applicant is not tainted by any irregularity, that the facts are established, that they amount to misconduct and that the sanction of summary dismissal is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. UNDT jurisdiction: The Tribunal has no power to compel a person external to the Organization to appear before it as a witness. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine whether the procedure followed was regular, whether the facts in question are established, whether...