Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was persuaded for reasons of equity and good faith by the Appellant¡¯s arguments rather than those put forward by the Secretary-General, although it did not accept the entirety of the Appellant¡¯s arguments on the discontinuation issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to give due consideration to the arguments raised by the Appellant regarding the years 1989 to 1997, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying former Staff Rule 104. 3 set forth in ST/SGB/2003/1 to the entirety of his service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to rely on the statutory provisions in force when he last...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

The reservations which each of the Applicants formulated upon accepting the lump sum are not binding on the Administration since, at the time the agreement was signed, the Administration and the staff member were not in a contractual situation in which each could negotiate rights. Instead, they were in a situation governed by rules in which the Administration could only apply the rules and the staff member could only accept or reject the lump-sum payment proposed. The applicants contend that only by accepting the lump-sum payment with reservations could they challenge the basis on which the...

The applicant¡¯s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the ¡°scheduled workday¡± and actual work (¡°hours of work¡±) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that DGACM¡¯s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM¡¯s policy and...

The Respondent appeared to have a good reason for cancelling the Applicant¡¯s leave. That having been said, however, the manner in which the Applicant was informed of that decision could have been done in a much better way. Considering the fact that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor had only three days earlier, on 9 August 2011, approved his leave, his one-line directive cancelling the Applicant¡¯s leave was not only callous and dismissive but most insensitive. This managerial shortcoming does not, by itself, render the decision prima facie unlawful.Although some harm is caused to the Applicant in...