Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute allow the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that as per ISA¡¯s Staff Rule the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the competence to ¡°order an interim measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the decision taken at the first instance level¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also has jurisdiction to order interim measures in appropriate cases arising out of an ISA dispute as is the case in Mr. Hall¡¯s Motion.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Hall had failed to demonstrate that relief by way of interim measures was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the JAB¡¯s decision. Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in the...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...