Â鶹APP

The Secretary-General claimed that UNDT had no power to award interest. UNAT found that both UNDT and UNAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

UNAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. UNAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that UNDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. UNAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

UNAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. UNAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. UNAT held that it had no reason to disagree with UNDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. UNAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

UNAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. UNAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. UNAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. UNAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. UNAT held that UNDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. UNAT held that UNDT committed...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. UNAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in law...

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

UNAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and UNDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). UNAT held that there was no reason to upset the UNDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. UNAT held, affirming UNDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by UNDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with UNICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, UNAT...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the UNAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to UNDT and failed to explain how UNDT erred in deciding his claims, UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. UNAT held that UNDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...