Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s deference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in such matters, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant challenged an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment and that the application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Smith¡¯s request for management evaluation and the MEU¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member was unlawful since it did not fully comply with its obligations under Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) to take all reasonable and bona fides efforts to consider her for available suitable posts, as an alternative to the abolished one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the phrase ¡°suitable posts¡± is not defined in the Staff Rules and that nothing in the language of Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) indicates that the obligation of the Administration to consider the redundant staff member for suitable posts, vacant...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not comply with his obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d) to find the Applicant an alternative post. Termination of appointment: A termination of a contract of employment by reason of restructuring of the workplace is lawful provided that the Organization discharges fully its duty and obligations towards the displaced staff member in accordance with the applicable law; the latter, in the case of termination of a permanent appointment for abolition of post, is staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Duty of...

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 Tribunal noted that the complaint about the long period it took for the Applicant to be paid and the dispute over the amount of the pension paid to him were beyond the scope of the application since they were not subjected to management evaluation as required by art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). The Tribunal found that the Administration had proper legal grounds for refusing to issue the separation notification to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in accordance with staff rule 3.18(c)(ii), ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members) and ST/AI/155/Rev.2 as...

The Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment. As the Applicant held a fixed-term appointment which expired, staff rules 9.6(e) and (f) do not apply. Therefore, the Administration had no obligation to make efforts to retain the Applicant. The application is therefore not receivable.