51�Թ�

UNAT considered whether UNDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant’s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant’s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. UNAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, UNDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

UNAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found no error in UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. UNAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. UNDT also noted that the review of the Appellant’s performance assessments...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant’s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. UNAT held that UNDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-UNAT-757) as it did. UNAT noted that in the Appellant’s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

With respect to the Appellant’s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. UNAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before UNRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. UNAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as “fully meets” expectations, and therefore this...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the UNDT’s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. UNAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant’s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. UNAT held that the application was...

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with UNAT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

UNAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. UNAT held that UNRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. UNAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months’ net base salary.

UNAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. UNAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. UNAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member’s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that in the...

Mr. Hammond’s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the UNDT’s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond’s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond’s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a “conversion” or an “abolishment” because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond’s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.