Â鶹APP

The UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The UNAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The UNAT noted that the UNDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The UNAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...

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...

UNAT disagreed and reversed the UNDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

UNAT held that the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that because the factual basis for the JAB¡¯s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

UNAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to UNDT. UNAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and WMO dated 20 January 2020. UNAT...

UNAT remanded the case to UNDT. UNAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to UNAT. UNAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the UNJSPF Regulations. When she...