Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

AAF appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As the Secretary-General had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member¡¯s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant¡¯s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant¡¯s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.

In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...

On the issue of illegality, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been removed from his official functions, without case or proper justification, and had been forced to re-apply for his own previous functions. These decisions were taken without reference to any failings of the Applicant, misconduct, indication that he has not successfully performed his functions in the past, or indication that he would not be able to perform his functions in the future.

On the issue of damages, the Tribunal found that although the Applicant kept on holding a continuing appointment at the D-1 level, he...

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

i. The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence on the record, the Applicant was never a staff member of ECA, DOS or any other entity of the United Nations. Accordingly, he had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The application was thus dismissed.

ii. The Tribunal also held that the application was barred by res judicata. It was recalled that the Tribunal had previously rejected an application by the Applicant contesting the same claims he raised in the present application. In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/078, the Tribunal had found that the Applicant was not a staff member and had no legal...

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...