91�鶹����

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s...

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two “landmark” performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant’s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request. 

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant’s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The UNAT noted that the reclassification request was made by UNIFIL and not by the staff member.

The UNAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the UNDT by the staff member.  Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment.  The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis.  It is a...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member’s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General’s submissions.

The UNAT also concluded that the UNDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI.  The UNAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his UNDT application and his management evaluation...

The UNAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The UNAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the UNDT’s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a UNDT hearing had not affected its decision.  The UNDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

The UNAT held that the UNDT Judge was not obligated to indicate their inclination on the evidence, especially since all evidence had not yet been presented. 

Considering various elements, including the Investigation Report, the WhatsApp message exchanges, and the former staff member’s admissions, the UNAT found the Complainant’s account of events credible.  It concluded that the former staff member’s alleged conduct of calling the Complainant to his room on 1 August 2020 and asking her to come to his bed was established by clear and convincing evidence and amounted to sexual harassment.  It...

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability.  The UNAT also held that the UNDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General’s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration’s decision not to reclassify his position.

The UNAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The UNAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements.  Specifically, the UNAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates’ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the UNAT held...