2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1402, Faten Hatim Al Dawoud
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the staff member.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2023/135, Kirby
The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant¡¯s view that her involvement with ¡°contentious¡± discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1399, Michel Raymond Marie Rixen
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1400, Lanla Kamara-Joyner
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT did not err in finding that the facts underlying the written reprimand were established. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT agreed that Ms. Kamara-Joyner¡¯s advocacy for an individual staff member was outside of her roles and duties in both her capacity as a Conflict Resolution Officer for Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµOMS and as President of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµPAD. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that Ms. Kamara-Joyner failed to expressly seek approval for the conflict of interest between her two roles and refused to follow instructions on removing the conflict of interest. Accordingly, she was subject to a disciplinary or administrative measure. The...
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1398, Sergio Baltazar Arviz¨² Trevino
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that several months after the Secretary-General had been notified of the Judgment, the only action taken was that some responses had been elicited from four staff members alleged in the complaint to have engaged in misconduct and that ¡°these responses alongside the 22 pages and 18 annexes¡± to the complaint were under review.
Noting the justification of the Secretary-General for the inaction that in the instant matter, no specific time had been set for execution, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Administration had not acted as promptly as per the obligations imposed on it, "within a...
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1397, Ibrahim Ahmad Fanous
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT did not err in its award of in-lieu compensation. It appropriately considered Mr. Fanous¡¯ chance of selection for the post when it stated that it considered there was no guarantee of a future selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT applied a context-specific lump sum amount. It considered the likelihood of selection and Mr. Fanous¡¯ salary at the time. It made a determination that was fair and just in the present case but also took a principled approach that considered all relevant considerations.
As to Mr. Fanous¡¯ request for moral damages, with regard to the First and...
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1394, Sajiv Nair
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s decision to grant Mr. Nair¡¯s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted the confusion presented by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s finding that ¡°no misconduct occurred at all¡±, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had ¡°repeatedly reacted and used hostile language¡± which justified, in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2023/134, Philippe Schifferling
The Tribunal found that, in the present case, there is no dispute that the decision was unilaterally made by the administration and that it involved the exercise of a power or the performance of a statutory instrument. The dispute is on whether the decision adversely affected the rights of the Applicant and produced direct legal consequences.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s argument that ¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµOPS not only decided to charge [him], but also to maintain him in an indefinite status of ¡°charged person,¡± leaving him indeterminately prosecuted; since as¡ªat the time of the Application¡ªhe had...
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1396, Sahar Darweesh Hanjoury
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellant¡¯s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant¡¯s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...
2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1395, Abdurrahman Turk
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the...