Home

The Agency now appeals, and for reasons set out below, the appeal is upheld. (...) Submissions The Agency’s Appeal 14. The Agency submitted that the UNRWA DT erred in failing to address or determine its main contention in opposing the application. (...) Second, the Agency argued that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in this instance because there was no direct representation on the part of the Agency to Mr.

Mohamed El Madhoun commenced his career with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA” or “Agency”) in 2002. (...) El Madhoun of the decision to terminate his services in the interest of the Agency. Accordingly, Mr. El Madhoun was separated from the Agency, retroactively as of 28 August 2018. 17. (...) On 3 September 2018, the Agency proceeded with the termination of Mr. El Madhoun’s appointment in the interest of the Agency, effective retroactively as of 28 August 2018.

Sa’adeddin was diligent in his efforts to receive a clear response from the Agency. As is clear from the evidence of communication between his representative and the Agency officials, he enquired, and was advised, every year that he should wait until the Agency change the insurance company and until the new rules for retirees were put into place. (...) Sa’adeddin’s contention that he had no basis to be aware that the Agency had decided, by separate decision taken prior to the December 2014 decision, to deny his requests pre-dating 2014 because the Agency had never informed him of the outcome of its earlier decision, the Agency contends that the failure to inform an applicant of a decision in writing is immaterial to deciding whether a decision was made by the Agency. (...) With regards to the alleged fault of the Agency for the lapse in Mr. Sa’adeddin’s enrolment in the GMIP, the Agency recalls its contention that the UNRWA DT correctly determined that any challenge to Agency decisions taken prior to December 2014 was not receivable because Mr.

The staff member in question, a former Senior Planning and Reporting Officer (the “Applicant”) with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA” or the “Agency”), had contested the Agency’s decision to deny his application for exceptional voluntary separation or “EVS” (the “Contested Decision”). 2. (...) This was his last post at the Agency. 6. At the Applicant’s request, the Agency again granted him an SLWOP for one year, commencing on 1 December 2016, which was further extended until 30 November 2018. (...) With a view to the limited resources of the Agency, granting an EVS to a staff member on SLWOP would go against the Agency’s financial interests as it would not entail any savings for the Agency in contrast to granting an EVS to a staff member receiving a salary from the Agency.

The Agency received a total of 74 applications, including the Applicant’s. (...) Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Judgment No. (...) There is no right to be short-listed and discretion lies with the Agency. The Judgment is, therefore, a manifestly unreasonable curtailment of the Agency’s discretion.

The Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA” or “Agency”, respectively) appeals the decision of the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal (the “UNRWA DT”) in Judgment No. (...) As a result, the Agency properly exercised its discretionary authority in determining the transfer requests. 18. (...) In the Appeals Tribunal Judgment, the Appeals Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the Agency’s rejection of the Applicant’s transfer request was unlawful for failure of the Agency to give proper weight to or even any consideration at all to his humanitarian reasons.

He makes public policy arguments about why the Agency’s insurance on its vehicles should cover all injuries of Agency staff and seeks to have the Tribunal legislate or redesign the Agency’s Regulations in respect of off-duty accidents. 23. (...) Hushiyeh requested that the UNRWA DT order the Agency “to reconsider the ex-gratia amount” that the Agency had offered him. (...) The record demonstrates that the Agency also took into account [his] long service with the Agency and the pain and suffering he endured due to the accident

This case arose from the decision by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA or the Agency) to terminate the service of Mr. (...) Sirhan made on 20 January 2019 to the Agency for appointment as a sanitation supervisor and includes, in particular, the Agency’s response dated 22 January 2019. (...) Sirhan did not do so until after the Board had made its recommendations to the Agency and the Agency had made its decision about the future of his employment.

UNRWA/DT/2018/034, rendered by the Dispute Tribunal of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA DT or UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, and Agency, respectively) on 13 May 2018, in the case of Jafari v. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (...) A staff member is retired on grounds of age when the Agency requires him/her to leave Agency employment on account of his/her age, as provided hereunder. 2.

Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (...) Paragraph 53 reads: A staff member who leaves the Agency’s service by EVS will not be eligible for re-employment for a minimum of eighteen (18) months after his/her separation from the Agency. Where a staff member separates from the Agency as a result of EVS and is re-employed by the Agency, re-employment shall only be by re-appointment, as set out in Area Staff Personnel Directive No.