Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had been downgraded on the basis that: the reclassification/renumbering exercise had a legitimate organizational objective; it was not a classification within the meaning of ST/AI/1998/9; and when the Appellant had submitted her post to proper classification, she was graded at the G-6 level, which was equivalent to her previous grade. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant failed to show that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had any detrimental impact on her salary or pensionable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in terms of Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that it does...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT contradicted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable on the basis that the Appellant was not challenging the new scheme for education grant introduced by the General Assembly, but rather the manner in which it was implemented in her specific case and the way in which the Secretary-General interpreted General Assembly Resolution 70/244. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that the Appellant did not have an acquired right to all of the previous education benefits she had enjoyed. On the question of the Appellant¡¯s access to a discretionary consideration of her claims on exceptional grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...