UNITED NATIONS DISPUTE TRIBUNAL

Before:

Judge Ebrahim-Carstens

Registry:

New York

Registrar:

Hafida Lahiouel

HAS SANIN
V.

SECRETARY-GENERAL

OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ORDER
ON CASE MANAGEMENT

Counsel for Applicant:

Lennox S. Hinds

Didier Sepho

Counsel for Respondent:

Alan Gutman, ALS/0HRM, UN Secretariat

Page 1 of 5

Case Nos.:

UNDT/NY/2014/020

Order No.:

103 (NY/2016)

Date:

3 May 2016

Original:

English

Case Nos. UNDT/NY/2014/020

Order No. 103 (NY/2016)

Introduction

1.

On 24 March 2014, the Applicant, a staff member in the Publishing

Section, Meeting and Publishing Division of the Department for General

Assembly and Conference Management ("DGACM"), filed an application
contesting the decision to abolish his post effective 1 January 2014, and, as
a result, to terminate his permanent appointment.

Hearing of 4 April 2016

2.

On 4 April 2016, the Tribunal held a one-day hearing in relation to

the present case.

3.

Ms. Janet Beswick, Deputy Executive Officer, DGACM, was one of

the witnesses called by the Respondent. In her oral evidence she refen'ed to
an email that she had sent to OHRM and/or the Executive Officer,
DGACM, seeking guidance on the issuance of termination notices to staff

elected as officials of the Staff Union. She testified that she did not locate a
response to her email query.
4.

It is common cause that the email referred to by Ms. Beswick was

not included in the agreed bundle, nor was it produced at any point in the
course of the proceedings. At the hearing, Counsel for the Applicant sought
production of the said email, to which the Respondent raised no objections.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the email be produced by the

Respondent.

5.

By Order No. 81 (NY/2016), dated 6 April 2016, The Tribunal

ordered the Respondent to file a copy of the email refen'ed to by Ms.

Beswick, and any response she may have received. The Tribunal also

directed the parties to file their closing submissions by 15 April 2016.

Page 2 of 5

Case Nos. UNDTiNY/2014/020

Order No. 103 (NY/2016)

6.

On 11 April 2016, the Respondent filed copies of emails dated

17 December 2013 (sent at 12:51 p.m. and 2:57 p.m.); 19 December 2013
(sent at 10:58 a.m.); and 20 December 2013 (sent at 1:42 p.m.).

7.

On 15 April 2016, the parties filed their closing submissions.

Applicant's motion of 2 May 2016

8.

On 2 May 2016, the Applicant filed a motion for leave to produce

newly discovered evidence. The Applicant submits that, on 26 April 2016,

he received newly discovered evidence previously unavailable to him.
The evidence consists of two emails dated 17 December 2013:
a.

The first email was sent at 12:51 p.m. by Mr. Magnus

Olafsson, the Director of Meetings and Publishing Division to

Ms. Mary Ann Chiulli, Executive Officer, DGACM, asking whether

DGACM had an obligation to keep the Applicant on the Staffing

Table given his election as First Vice President. (This email was

disclosed by the Respondent on 11 April 2016.)

b.

The second email was sent at 3:01 p.m. by Ms. Chiulli to Mr.

Olafsson stating that, "as an elected official, the Department will be

obliged to keep [the Applicant] on one of the Distribution posts".

(This email has not been made available to the Tribunal prior to the
filing of the Applicant's motion.)
9.

The Applicant submits that the newly discovered email (sent at 3:01

p.m.) challenges the credibility of Respondent's witnesses Ms. Beswick and

Mr. Narendra Nandoe (Chief, Meeting Support Section, DGACM), who

also testified on 4 April 2016. The Applicant further submits that the email
supports his contention that the Respondent knowingly decided to terminate

his appointment notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant had been

Page 3 of 5

Case Nos. UNDT/NY/2014/020

Order No. 103 (NY/20 ! 6)

elected First Vice-President of the United Nations Staff Union and the
recommendation of the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly that
elected officials of the Staff Union should receive full-time 'release from
their job functions.

10. The Applicant requests the Tribunal to admit the two emails
included in his motion dated 2 May 2016 as evidence in the present case.
Alternatively, the Applicant requests the Tribunal to reopen the hearing and

allow the Applicant to call the Executive Officer and the Director of
Meetings and Publishing Division, DGACM, to testify before the Tribunal.

Consideration

11.

It should be noted at the outset that the email dated

17 December 2013 (12:51 p.m.) is already part of the case record, having
been referred to by Ms. Beswick and Respondent's Counsel at the hearing

of 4 April 2016 and having been produced by the Respondent pursuant to

Order No. 81 (NY/2016) prior to the filing of the closing submissions.
12. The second email produced by the Applicant (time-stamped 3:01
p.m.) appears to be relevant to the issues raised at the hearing. It is unclear

why this email was not produced by the Respondent, given that it falls
directly under para. 6 of Order No. 81 (NY/2016).
13.

For a fair and expeditious disposal of the cases and to do justice to

the parties,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
14.

By 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, 10 May 2016, the Respondent shall file and

serve a response to the Applicant's motion of 2 May 2016, and addressing

each of the following:

Page 4 of 5

Case Nos. UNDTiNY/2014/020

Order No. 103 (NY/2016)
a.

Stating whether the Respondent has any objections to the

authenticity of the email;

b.

Providing reasons why this email was not disclosed by the

Respondent in response to Order No. 81 (NY/2016);

c.

Stating whether the Respondent has any reasoned objections

to the inclusion of this email as part of the case record;

d.

Stating the Respondent's views regarding the Applicant's

alternative request to reopen the hearing and call Ms. Chiulli and
Mr. Olafsson to give evidence before the Tribunal.

Judge Ebrahim-Carstens

Dated this 3rd day of May 2016

Page 5 of 5