Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

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 noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her claim was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT case concerning ABE. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it clear that the issues before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the case on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus agreed with the conclusion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that ABE¡¯s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

The...