Â鶹APP

UNAT considered Ms Worsley¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA¡¯s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. UNAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA¡¯s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that UNDT previously considered in its judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, UNAT granted the motion. UNAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the UNDT judgment remained in force.

Noting that UNDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. UNAT found no fault with UNDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

In the present case, the Applicant, who was advised by OSLA that his case lacked legal merit and who nevertheless could be represented by a counsel of his choice before the Tribunal, cannot claim that his due process rights were violated. The Tribunal reiterates that a fixed-term appointment carries no expectancy of renewal. However, the Judge must examine whether the Administration¡¯s actions may have created a legitimate expectation of renewal and whether the decision not to renew the appointment was motivated by extraneous factors. In the present case, the decision not to renew the Applicant...

The Applicant¡¯s alleged abuse of Buddy qualified as such conduct. Not returning the Applicant to the Canine Unit. It was proper not to return the Applicant to his former job after the disciplinary case against him had been dismissed. Not returning Buddy. Since Buddy was surrendered to the custody of the New York State Police, the Â鶹APP would appear to have transferred back the property rights over Buddy to the New York State Police. Regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary case against the Applicant, it would therefore seem that the Respondent is not able to return Buddy to the...

The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.