Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an analysis of the e-mail and other correspondence between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and the Appellant indicated that she could not have been led to believe that her home leave request for January 2020 would be granted. She had been advised that a staff member was entitled to home leave only if the staff member¡¯s contract was anticipated to continue for more than six months after the return from home leave, yet Appellant¡¯s continuing engagement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP was unknown, and her current contract end date was June 30, 2020. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP complied with its obligations to consider and decide the...

Ms. Coleman appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first explained that under the new reimbursement regime, an expense would be recoverable if: (i) it¡¯s for tuition; (ii) it is paid directly to the school; and (iii) it is certified by the school as being necessary for attendance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim that because another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ entity would apply a rule more favorably to his case, that entity¡¯s interpretation should trump over the one given by the organization where he actually works. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration¡¯s approach that if an item in a category of fees was inadmissible, then the Administration...

Mr. Kuate appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member¡¯s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was ¡°re-employed¡± on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

The Tribunal found a number of the Applicant's claims to not be receievable. The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the refusal of the Applicant's request to extend her time telecommuting was that the Applicant¡¯s role as a child protection officer needed presence on the ground and that telecommuting was not appropriate for the functions of her role. The Applicant did not have a medical exemption to telecommute. The record showed that the reason was true and that the Applicant was afforded the same discretion as other members of her team. The Tribunal therefore found no indication of...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/028, the Tribunal rejected the application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2021/023, finding that the Applicant is ineligible for boarding allowance for his child. In this case, the Applicant essentially challenges the same decision to find him ineligible for boarding allowance for his child, the issue of which was already resolved in Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/028. Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal rejects the present application.

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration¡¯s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...