Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d'abord jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en droit dans l'application r¨¦troactive de la r¨¨gle 193.3 (c) r¨¦troactivement lorsqu'elle a examin¨¦ son droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. Au moment o¨´ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e a ¨¦t¨¦ prise, seuls les r¨¨glements et r¨¨gles du personnel de l'OMM 2019 ¨¦taient en vigueur et auraient d? ¨ºtre appliqu¨¦s. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a fait une erreur dans l'application de la loi 2020 en fonction de la soumission par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de la mauvaise version des r¨¦glementations et r¨¨gles de l'OMM ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ la conclusion...

Les unis ont confirm¨¦ les conclusions de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon lesquelles (1) quatre des six incidents sous-jacents ¨¤ l'environnement de travail hostile contre l'appelant n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis, mais que deux incidents ¨¦taient; et (2) l'appelant avait ill¨¦galement interf¨¦r¨¦ avec un exercice de recrutement qui a ¨¦galement cr¨¦¨¦ un environnement de travail hostile. L'inat a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de l'appelant selon laquelle, parce que les Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT consid¨¦raient que certaines actions n'¨¦taient pas du harc¨¨lement, elles ne pouvaient pas constituer une faute. Alors que certains commentaires de l'appelant sur la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected appellant¡¯s contention that because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General¡¯s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...