Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead¡¯s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance evaluation an ¡°administrative decision¡± with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding her application receivable.

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance as ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an ¡°equivalent certification¡±. In the present case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reclassification request was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL and not by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member¡¯s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application and his management evaluation...