Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Garbo and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Garbo¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Hamdan and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Hamdan¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject Hamdan¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s appointment. The staff member¡¯s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a ¡°dry cut.¡± A ¡°dry cut¡± happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the 11 November 2018 letter provided notification of the final administrative decision subject to appeal, since it contained the key characteristic of producing ¡°¡¯direct legal consequences¡¯ affecting a staff member¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment¡±.

Mr. Hammond¡¯s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond¡¯s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond¡¯s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a ¡°conversion¡± or an ¡°abolishment¡± because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond¡¯s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the staff member that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not able to detect any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.