Â鶹APP

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that UNRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that UNRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. UNAT accordingly found that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, UNAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

UNAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that UNRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. UNAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. UNAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. UNAT held that UNRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. UNAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

The UNRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...