Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registry. Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.

The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The entitlement under new staff rule 6.3 on parental leave is only effective as of 1 January 2023, and its application is subject to the ¡°conditions established by the Secretary-General¡± as per staff rule 6.3(a). These conditions are set out in ST/AI/2023/2.

Section 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2 provides that said administrative instruction governs the administration of parental leave in respect of a child born or adopted on or...

The Tribunal established that the Applicant was duly informed, before accepting the offer letter, of the mandatory nature of the condition of mobility in her proposed employment. However, even if mandatory mobility had not been so explicit in the pre-appointment documents, the regulatory framework stipulates at staff rule 4.1 that it is the letter of appointment (LOA) that contains expressly or by reference the terms and conditions of employment.

Therefore, when the Applicant signed her LOA on 3 October 2023, duly accepting all the terms and conditions of her employment, including the required...

General verbal statements, which the Applicant asserts were made by his Fist Reporting Officer during team meetings, cannot constitute an express promise to renew his TA. More importantly, such verbal statements lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing to substantiate an expectation of renewal of his TA.

The Tribunal found that performance management procedures governed by ST/AI/2010/5 and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s action of gifting a sex toy to a subordinate was inappropriate, as it transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of the subordinate, even if the event took place in private. Whether solicited or not, it had the potential to negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that by doing so, the staff member failed to uphold the required standard expected of her role as a manager.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in finding that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.

The Tribunal recalled that the regulatory framework on termination for facts anterior does not limit it to cases where there has been a proven prior factual finding of misconduct or a conviction of crime. What is required is that there must be a fact anterior that detracts from the suitability of the prospective recruit due to concerns of efficiency, competence, and integrity. The fact must be of so serious a nature that it would have precluded the staff member¡¯s appointment if it had been disclosed to the Organization during the recruitment process.

In the instant case, the Tribunal...

The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.

As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.

The Applicant claims that the Administration¡¯s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.

In the Tribunal¡¯s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant¡¯s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant¡¯s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

The Applicant's motion for interim measure is made in the context of a series of applications arising from decisions taken because of allegations of misconduct against the Applicant, which involved sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Such misconduct is recognized in the regulatory framework as of such gravity that it provides an exceptional basis for placing a staff member on ALWOP pending the conclusion of the investigation. The Applicant contends that, based on new information available, there is no longer any basis for a finding that there is a preponderance of evidence that he engaged in...

It was undisputed and established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in several instances of outside activities. It was further undisputed that the Applicant was advised to seek authorization for her online activities. The Applicant¡¯s challenge, therefore, is limited to the characterization of the established conduct as outside activities and, consequently, as misconduct.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by clear and convincing evidence

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware that...

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The Tribunal found that the Applicant, whose child was born on 2 May 2022, was entitled to four weeks of paternity leave or eight weeks of adoption leave under the 2018 Staff Rules and ST/AI/2005/2, which he exercised. He was not, as he contends, ¡°placed in a no-man¡¯s land between two [Administrative Instructions]¡±.

The fact that the Applicant requested and was exceptionally granted additional leave after 1 January 2023 is...