Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...