Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member¡¯s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member¡¯s position. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT might have repeated some or most of the Respondent¡¯s arguments and language in its judgment would not be sufficient to undermine the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s considerations or determinations.

Regarding the scope of the appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the remedy claimed in the appeal does not aim for the rescission of the reassignment, but the placement into a P-5 or D-1 post commensurate with the Appellant¡¯s skills, training, qualifications, and experience for which she has applied and which was not the subject of her initial application, the...

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

Ms. Coleman appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...

The Applicant specifically submits that the staff rules state that ¡°[c]ontinuity of service shall not be considered broken by periods of special leave¡± and the Respondent may not therefore deny his eligibility on the ground that his six months of special leave without pay resulted in him not having been employed for a continuous period of five years The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds the contested decision and finds that the Applicant is eligible for consideration for permanent appointment.

The Tribunal granted the application, and the contested decision was rescinded and SLWP request remanded for the ASG/OHRM¡¯s consideration within 30 days.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

Non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s FTA Given the financial situation, the Tribunal finds that the challenged decision is not ultra vires, being for the administration to evaluate the opportunity to renew temporary contracts according to the financial situation of that time. The lawfulness of the non-renewal decision must be evaluated with reference to the situation of the moment in which the decision was taken. However, in presence of a contract whose effects remain for a longer period, and which do not require non-renewal notices, the reason constituting the ground of the administrative decision...