Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant¡¯s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM¡¯s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}

ince the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general order...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has discharged the burden of proof in showing that her non-selection for the upgraded post and her subsequent separation from the Organization were motivated by bias, procedural breaches, retaliation and other improper motives. Procedural flaws - The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM Selection Guidelines were not complied with during the selection process. The Tribunal found several procedural flaws in the selection process. Priority Consideration - Priority consideration is only to be exercised if an Applicant entitled to it is recommended for appointment following an interview...

The Tribunal found that the application deals with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal (Tintukasiri et al. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-526), and that it was not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute.