Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General ¡°to grant an appointment¡± to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member¡¯s appointment. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member¡¯s 2016 WAE...

The Tribunal found that the main issues for determination in this matter were 1) whether a temporary job opening limited to ¡°local recruitment only¡± is lawful, and 2) if the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. On the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that pursuant to section 1.1 of ST/AI/2010/4 Rev.1 (Administration of temporary appointments) the Organization may limit temporary job openings to local recruitment cannot stand. It also found that there were no legal grounds for the Respondent¡¯s assertion that limiting temporary recruitments...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman¡¯s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is¡ªif a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not¡ªthe application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...

The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant¡¯s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.