UNAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. UNAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. UNAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC’s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. UNAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the UNDT’s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, UNAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...
UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the lateral reassignment of a staff member, in this case, fell entirely within the discretion of the Administration. UNAT found no evidence of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion in the appeal which could allow UNDT to pronounce on the discretion of the Administration. Finding no illegality and no evidence that the cancellation of the job opening had an adverse effect on the staff member’s morale and professional reputation, UNAT vacated the award of compensation. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.
The Administration, on three separate occasions in 2000, determined that his post would remain classifiable at the P-3 level. In 2006, the Applicant made another request to have his post reclassified and a desk audit of the post was performed under ST/AI/1998/9, but the post remained classified at the P-3 level. The Applicant contended that the Respondent failed to comply with the established procedures as set out in ST/AI/1998/9, including that the Applicant was not provided with available documentation to justify the decisions and that this effectively deprived him from filing a meaningful...
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent’s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires “maximum dispatch” in the completion of the rebuttal process.
