Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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...

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 determined that the decision to maintain the staff member¡¯s performance rating ¡°C ¨C Partially meets expectations¡± constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of ¡°Partially meets expectations¡± justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.

Regarding the disciplinary measure, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had applied for vacancies of different posts, at different times, with different selection processes, and had not been selected for different reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application in respect of the post in Pretoria was clearly out of time and in respect of the post in Nairobi premature and, as such, not receivable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis of the applicable legal framework governing the education grant, specifically the costs admissible for reimbursement, had been erroneous and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction when it found the promulgation of the amended administrative instruction unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to provide the reasons, facts and law on which it had based its Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fees which were clearly intended to cover extra-curricular activities or general non-academic services, and were not intended to cover administrative...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Agency¡¯s job classification tool had been used to reclassify the staff members¡¯ posts. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred when it had decided the case in the absence of the full document of the International Civil Service Commission¡¯s ¡°Master Standard for Classification¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Classification Reports were relevant and sufficient for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determinations.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that notwithstanding the various anomalies in the reclassification process, the staff members had failed to show anything specific that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...