UNDT/2024/062, Applicant
The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant’s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration’s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not indicate any intent to return to work.
The Applicant, a former staff member with the Division of Special Activities, Department of Operational Support (“DOS”), filed an application challenging the decision of 12 May 2023, to separate her from service for abandonment of post.
The Tribunal must review a decision to separate a staff member for abandonment of post within the wider context of the alleged unauthorized absence. The Dispute Tribunal must evaluate the objective element of unauthorized absence in the context of the subjective component of the staff member’s action or inaction. The Appeals Tribunal has stated that mere unauthorized absence is not enough to establish that the staff member had effectively abandoned his post. In the present case, the record establishes that the Applicant failed to take any timely steps to respond to the Administration’s various communications and notifications regarding her absences. As a contrast, in the case of Webster 2023-UNAT-1369, the Applicant had clearly advised his supervisor of his medical situation, as well as of his “hope to recover soon and return to work” and remained in regular contact with the Administration during his absence.