Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.
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...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.
Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a ¡°decision¡±. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order requesting information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...
The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the contested decision not to initiate an investigation due to the resignation of her SRO was lawful as part of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Though the term ¡°preliminary assessment¡± in ST/SGB/2019/8 was not specifically used in the contested decision, it was clear that Ms. Fosse¡¯s complaint was preliminarily assessed before the decision was made that no investigation would be undertaken. While the previous Bulletin (ST/SGB/2008/5) may have been in force when she lodged her complaint and when it was the subject of a preliminary...
Mr. Pierre filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable. The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre¡¯s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...
