Â鶹APP

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

The UNAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that his ex-wife¡¯s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The UNAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

The UNAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The UNAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The UNAT therefore held that the UNRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the facts underlying the written reprimand were established. The UNAT agreed that Ms. Kamara-Joyner¡¯s advocacy for an individual staff member was outside of her roles and duties in both her capacity as a Conflict Resolution Officer for UNOMS and as President of UNPAD. The UNAT found that Ms. Kamara-Joyner failed to expressly seek approval for the conflict of interest between her two roles and refused to follow instructions on removing the conflict of interest. Accordingly, she was subject to a disciplinary or administrative measure. The...

The UNAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the UNDT¡¯s decision to grant Mr. Nair¡¯s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision. The UNAT noted the confusion presented by UNDT¡¯s finding that ¡°no misconduct occurred at all¡±, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had ¡°repeatedly reacted and used hostile language¡± which justified, in the UNDT¡¯s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The UNAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the UNRWA staff members. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The UNAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The UNAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no UNRWA...

The UNAT concluded that the UNDT erred in considering that the different periods of ALWOP on which Mr. Okwakol was placed, were the subject of a single and continuing administrative decision. The UNAT held that each of the three identifiable periods was the subject of consideration or reconsideration of the circumstances at that time. On each occasion, the Organisation took a decision about the state of the misconduct investigation and its ongoing nature and advised Mr. Okwakol accordingly. It was not decisive or even material that the renewals of the ALWOP were referred to as extensions of...

The UNAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the UNDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The UNAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the Â鶹APP Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, UNAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...