Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the findings by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...