Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s legal framework.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the...

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 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 held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found 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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...