Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-416. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained in force.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-418. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to overturn a policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the 60 days¡¯ deadline for the staff member to request management evaluation started from 18 March 2011, the date of the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was, therefore, receivable pursuant to Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the repeated renewal of appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave Mr. Igbinedion a legitimate expectation of renewal, was per incuriam and contravened clear and consistent jurisprudence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...