Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Regarding the decision to not convene a fact-finding panel, the Tribunal recalled its jurisprudence which indicates that a fact-finding investigation may only be undertaken if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a staff member had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. In the instant case, the Tribunal, concluded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to support his claim.

In relation to the second contested decision, the Tribunal also referred to its settled jurisprudence which indicates that there is no right to FWA. The Tribunal, rather, observed that a denial of FWA...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.

The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.