Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that...
With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
The Appellant sought reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...
As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that knowledge of the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...
On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no final, appealable...
