Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel ¡°influenced¡± by them.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...