It consistently follows from AA’s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant’s many texts on the proposed “bet” that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: “Still on that topic man?”; “I value my dignity more than $2.000”; “I do not bet”; “I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my UNFCU account and that is it”; “The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over”. Despite this...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:

a. Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;

b. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and

c. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and the reasons provided by the Respondent for not selecting the Applicant and concluded that based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Respondent’s decision not to select him cannot be faulted as being unfair. The Applicant did not have the CIPS level 2 certification that was a mandatory requirement for the position, and he did not prove that he had two years of progressive experience in procurement management.

Furthermore, the Applicant’s suggestion in his submissions that the selection panel ought not to have relied only on his...

The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant’s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.

As to the...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

c.The Applicant’s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

d. The record was...

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...

Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization’s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).

The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

Merits

The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal DECIDES to deny the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that:

(a) The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria which would support his claim to whistleblower protection.

(b) The facts of the contested decision were properly establised. Since the Complainant had the relevant qualifications and experience, the Applicant’s attacks on her were neither well founded, nor did they constitute a fair response or comment in the circumstances. The concerns were defamatory of her professionalism and integrity. Accordingly, the Applicant made disparaging remarks about the Complainant in front of other UNJSPF staff. In addition, the Applicant...

In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A” when asked after “is your...

For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...

The Tribunal found no merit in the application. In particular, the Tribunal found no grounds for the Applicants’ claim that the contested decisions were unlawful or that they were subject to gender discrimination. The Tribunal found that neither Applicant qualified for sec. 6.3(a)(i) parental leave by operation of sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2, which set a cutoff date of 1 January 2023, nor did they qualify for the 10 weeks special leave under the transitional measures since they did not give birth and were not on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. The Tribunal found that since the Applicants did...

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The UNAT noted that when the staff member had moved to North Carolina, he had not enquired whether or not he was obligated to pay the income tax of that state. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General had erred in applying a one-year time limit to his request for reimbursement of his North Carolina state income tax for 2015-2018.

The UNAT considered the language of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, interpretative doctrines, the legal regime of staff assessment, the hierarchy of the relevant norms and the apparent intent of the General Assembly. The UNAT...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an “equivalent certification”. In the present case, the UNDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration’s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev’s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an UNRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT’s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev’s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev’s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...