Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member¡¯s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was ¡°re-employed¡± on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made...

The Tribunal found that the decision regarding the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement has a crucial impact on the case because had his request to be reinstated be considered positively, his service with the Organization would have been considered continuous. The Tribunal ordered the Administration to decide on the request for reinstatement after a policy including the conditions for reinstatement is promulgated and to review, afterward, the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment. The Tribunal remanded the contested decision to the...

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant¡¯s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions was the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration. The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal¡¯s review of the legality of the contested decisions is the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-; 684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants¡¯ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration.; The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Applicant was not entitled to an increase in step, therefore, the Administration had the right to the correction of an error, and it did not constitute a retroactive application of rules and regulations. The Administration lawfully recovered the overpayment of entitlements resulted from an administrative error.

The Tribunal found that Administration properly calculated the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlements and that the procedure to terminate her appointment for health reasons was properly followed. The Tribunal found that as the Applicant had been ¡°re-employed¡± on the fixed-term contract, staff rule 4.17 prevented the Applicant from claiming that she had completed more than three years of continuous service based on her previous service under the temporary appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlement of three months on full salary and three months on half salary was calculated...