Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration¡¯s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz¡¯s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was problematic because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

Mr. Hassan appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member¡¯s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...