Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT case concerning ABE. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it clear that the issues before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the case on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus agreed with the conclusion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that ABE¡¯s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the decision was...