Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'ajustement proportionnel des normes de charge de travail pour les services d'auto-r¨¦vision relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Le Tribunal d'appel s'est d¨¦clar¨¦ satisfait du fait que l'Administration avait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es lors de la prise et de la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, et que le TND avait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de consulter la direction du personnel au niveau du d¨¦partement ou du bureau concernant une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'appel.

Le...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d'abord examin¨¦ la demande d'audience orale pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le fonctionnaire et a d¨¦cid¨¦ qu'elle n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire pour le r¨¨glement rapide et ¨¦quitable de son affaire.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a fait observer que lorsque les seules personnes pr¨¦sentes lors d'une agression physique sont l'auteur et la victime, une audience orale peut ¨ºtre utile pour ¨¦tablir la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ des t¨¦moignages. Toutefois, dans le cas pr¨¦sent, le TCSN a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire et son conseil avaient convenu qu'ils n'avaient aucun t¨¦moin ¨¤ pr¨¦senter lors d'une audience orale et pr¨¦f¨¦raient s'en remettre au rapport d...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'ajustement proportionnel des normes de charge de travail pour les services d'auto-r¨¦vision relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Le Tribunal d'appel s'est d¨¦clar¨¦ satisfait que l'Administration ait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es lors de la prise et de la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, et que le TNDH ait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de consulter la direction du personnel au niveau du d¨¦partement ou du bureau concernant une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'appel.

Le Tribunal d...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les all¨¦gations du fonctionnaire concernant la manipulation frauduleuse de ses registres ¨¦lectroniques de cong¨¦s n'¨¦taient pas fond¨¦es, faute de preuves.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait commis une erreur en laissant des questions factuelles cruciales en suspens, ce qui rendait impossible de statuer pleinement sur l'appel. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que les tableaux r¨¦capitulatifs des registres de cong¨¦s de maladie du fonctionnaire n'¨¦taient pas des ou?-dire, mais constituaient des registres commerciaux dont l'exactitude devait ¨ºtre pr¨¦sum¨¦e, sauf preuve contraire...

Le TNP a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire concernant le calcul des prestations du Fonds de pr¨¦voyance ¨¦tait sans fondement, car l'Office avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique en vigueur. Le TNP a estim¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 106.1(16)(D)(ii) du R¨¨glement du personnel local, le dernier taux d'int¨¦r¨ºt sp¨¦cial publi¨¦ s'applique jusqu'au mois pr¨¦c¨¦dant imm¨¦diatement le paiement inclus. ?tant donn¨¦ que le paiement a ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦ en ao?t 2022, l'Agence a correctement appliqu¨¦ la circulaire...

Le TNP a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire concernant le calcul des prestations du Fonds de pr¨¦voyance ¨¦tait sans fondement, car l'Office avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique en vigueur. Le TNP a estim¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 106.1(16)(D)(ii) du R¨¨glement du personnel local, le dernier taux d'int¨¦r¨ºt sp¨¦cial publi¨¦ s'applique jusqu'au mois pr¨¦c¨¦dant imm¨¦diatement le paiement inclus. ?tant donn¨¦ que le paiement a ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦ en ao?t 2022, l'Agence a correctement appliqu¨¦ la circulaire...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s claims of fraudulent manipulation of his electronic leave records failed for want of proof.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by leaving crucial factual issues unresolved, which made it impossible to determine the appeal fully. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the tables summarizing the staff member¡¯s sick leave records were not hearsay but qualified as business records entitled to a presumption of accuracy unless rebutted. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that these records were accurate and noted unresolved inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en se fondant sur le document ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration des engagements temporaires) pour conclure que l'¨¦valuation du comportement professionnel du fonctionnaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦e conform¨¦ment aux exigences proc¨¦durales ¨¦nonc¨¦es dans cette instruction administrative. Le document ST/AI/2021/4 (Syst¨¨me de gestion et de d¨¦veloppement des performances) ne s'applique pas ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation des performances de M. Fagasinski, car l'instruction susmentionn¨¦e stipule explicitement qu'elle ne s'applique pas aux engagements temporaires.

Le...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ qu'il pouvait y avoir une certaine ambigu?t¨¦ dans le paragraphe 104 de l'arr¨ºt de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, pour lequel le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a demand¨¦ une interpr¨¦tation. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ que l'interpr¨¦tation appropri¨¦e ¨¦tait que lorsque le TUD rendra sa nouvelle d¨¦cision sur les articles 10(5) et 10(6) du Statut du TUD, la partie qui n'aura pas obtenu gain de cause pourra faire appel de l'ensemble du nouveau jugement du TUD, y compris de la d¨¦cision du TUD sur le fond.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a jug¨¦ que la demande d'interpr¨¦tation du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¦tait recevable et l'a accept¨¦e. Il a en outre not¨¦ qu...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que la JAB est sp¨¦cifiquement habilit¨¦e ¨¤ statuer sur une demande de suspension d'une action relevant de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence, de sorte que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n'avait aucun motif d'examiner les recours tant qu'il n'y avait pas eu de demande en temps utile concernant une d¨¦cision sur le fond. ? ce moment-l¨¤, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pourra examiner, le cas ¨¦ch¨¦ant, les questions relatives au respect des proc¨¦dures r¨¦guli¨¨res soulev¨¦es dans le recours actuellement form¨¦ par les anciens membres du personnel de l'ISA.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a not¨¦ que les audiences orales n'aideraient pas le Tribunal ¨¤ statuer de...

Le TFP a estim¨¦ que la requ¨ºte introduite par l'ancien agent devant le TFP n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Le TFP a observ¨¦ que l'ancien agent avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 30 mai 2024 ou, selon sa propre d¨¦claration, au plus tard le 5 juin 2024. En cons¨¦quence, dans le premier sc¨¦nario, la requ¨ºte aurait d? ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦e avant le 28 ao?t 2024, et dans le second sc¨¦nario, avant le 3 septembre 2024. Comme sa requ¨ºte n'a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e que le 4 septembre 2024, le TFP a conclu qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ correctement jug¨¦ qu'elle avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e bien au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 90 jours...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety, including the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding on the merits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...