Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all arguments made on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/100, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to conduct a fresh investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...