Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s claims of fraudulent manipulation of his electronic leave records failed for want of proof.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by leaving crucial factual issues unresolved, which made it impossible to determine the appeal fully. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the tables summarizing the staff member¡¯s sick leave records were not hearsay but qualified as business records entitled to a presumption of accuracy unless rebutted. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that these records were accurate and noted unresolved inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety, including the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding on the merits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...