Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not sustain the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Mr Koutang¡¯s actions did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction imposed was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate and, as such, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to consider the issue...

The Tribunal, referring to O¡¯Hanlon, (which was not before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT), stated that, ¡°This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O¡¯Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in its determination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as of 30 June 2009, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal which held that, unless the Administration had made an express promise that gave a staff member an expectance of extension, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending an appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had suffered no material harm from the series of renewals for short...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ms Akello¡¯s involvement in the private company Blessed Seasons, which was on a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ list of companies providing escort vehicle services, met the standard of business activity and enterprise prohibited by former Staff Regulation 1. 2(m) and that her activities amounted to a conflict of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ruling otherwise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact and the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal succeeded on that ground. On the issue of whether the very fact that the Internal Affairs Unit investigation, having...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...