Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had been downgraded on the basis that: the reclassification/renumbering exercise had a legitimate organizational objective; it was not a classification within the meaning of ST/AI/1998/9; and when the Appellant had submitted her post to proper classification, she was graded at the G-6 level, which was equivalent to her previous grade. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant failed to show that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had any detrimental impact on her salary or pensionable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...

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 held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...