Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made to its own judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on her application for a suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

On the termination decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...