2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1592

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the staff member��s claims of fraudulent manipulation of his electronic leave records failed for want of proof.

The Ģ��ƵAT further held that the Ģ��ƵDT erred by leaving crucial factual issues unresolved, which made it impossible to determine the appeal fully. The Ģ��ƵAT found that the tables summarizing the staff member��s sick leave records were not hearsay but qualified as business records entitled to a presumption of accuracy unless rebutted. However, the Ģ��ƵAT was not satisfied that these records were accurate and noted unresolved inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Ģ��ƵAT further emphasized that the staff member must be given access to all records relied upon by the Administration before the Ģ��ƵDT considers them, to allow a reasonable opportunity to review and challenge those records.

Therefore, the Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal, reversed Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2024/111, and remanded the case to the Ģ��ƵDT for further fact-finding on sick leave calculations and record corrections.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member of the United Nations Department of Safety and Security contested the Administration��s decision to place him on sick leave at half pay combined with annual leave, after determining that he had reached the maximum entitlement of 195 working days of sick leave on full salary within a four-year period. The staff member argued that the calculation of his sick leave balance was inaccurate and that his records in Umoja had been improperly altered.

In its Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2024/111, the Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the staff member��s application on the merits, finding that the Administration had correctly calculated his sick leave entitlement and that he had exhausted his full-pay sick leave days.

Staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Hearsay is a statement or other oral utterance not made by a witness in evidence before a tribunal or court, sought to be introduced to prove the truth of its content.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Case remanded

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Deogracious Bwire Adundo

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement