2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1620, Margaret Mary Fogarty
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1619, ABI
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT committed an error of law by...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1617, ABF
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1616, ABL
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the former staff member committed sexual harassment towards the Complainant by: i) entering her accommodation without invitation, hugging, kissing, and licking her forehead without her consent, reclining her on her bed to lie next to him, and refusing to leave when asked; and ii) telling her the following day that she had been unable to sleep because she had been thinking of him.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had provided a clear and reasoned analysis of the witnesses¡¯ credibility.It concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s determination that certain discrepancies in the Complainant¡¯s...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1618, Varun Singh Phogat
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.
The...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1615, Clay Shiala Nsilu
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT 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¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.
The...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1614, Raul Antonio de Melo Cabral
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1613, Traian Turcanu
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT 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¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1612, Jean Daniel Ondo Mvondo
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1611, Massimo Moroldo
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...