Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General¡¯s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a ¡°Message of the Day¡± was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and unfairness compared to other staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that it was open to the Administration to extend the appointment of Appellant for less than one year. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of his request to grant access to the Organisation¡¯s premises in Vienna for the public to attend the Geneva hearing via video-link was unreasonable in the light of the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by declining to hear three witnesses proposed by him, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the discretion to decide whether the presence of witnesses was required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to renew his appointment for only 11 months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, in accordance with the legal framework, there was no minimum duration for the renewal of a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, under ST/SGB/1997/5 and ST/SGB/2004/6, the Director of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC Division for Management did have authority to decide and adopt the alignment policy, for the purpose of ¡°managing the human resources of the United Nations Secretariat entities in Vienna¡±; and could do so by way of ¡°Messages of the day¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that there was legal uncertainty because the decisions reflected in the ¡°Messages of the Day¡± were taken based on the former Staff Rules which were abolished effective 1 July 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the alignment policy adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC was properly and fairly implemented with respect to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation of unequal treatment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Secretary-General provided sufficient reasons to explain the differences in contractual situations and the Appellant failed to show that the application of the alignment policy to his case was unfair or tainted by improper motives. The Applicant appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The burden of proving allegations that the contested administrative decision was tainted by improper motives, discrimination, arbitrariness, retaliation, etc. , lies with the staff member contesting the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT defers to the determination of facts before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and would only interfere if it is satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered irrelevant matters or ignored relevant matters placed before it by the parties.