The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.
As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
A staff member¡¯s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1030, para. 34).
The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.
Accordin...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...
The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.
The Appeals Tribunal held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.
Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her.
Whereas the Applicant¡¯s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...
The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.
The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...
The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon¡¯s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...
