Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the decision not to select the staff member for TJO 161651 was lawful. It held that since the staff member did not challenge the cancellation of TJO 14924, under which the Administration initially advertised the position of Administrative Officer, that cancellation decision was not part of the contested decision under review. In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the Administration had the discretion to cancel TJO 149241 and re-advertise the position under TJO 161651 after the selected candidate withdrew her candidature. It was under no obligation to invite the second...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is challenging an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with his terms of appointment or his contract of employment and is not challenging the legitimacy of General Assembly resolution 66/234. The application is accordingly receivable.

The General Assembly resolution, Staff Rules, and the ICSC principles and guidelines are clear and unambiguous. These rules stipulate that GS staff wishing to apply for a professional post must first pass the G to P exam unless exceptional approval for a waiver is granted.

Staff at level FS-5 and...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member¡¯s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was ¡°re-employed¡± on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.