Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretary-General in not the Chief Administrative Officer of IOM, and IOM has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General accepting the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. Instead, IOM falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

As the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was not filed before submitting the application to the Dispute Tribunal in the present case, the Tribunal does not have the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction under staff rule 11.2. The challenge against the decision of...

The context of the case in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô is not similar. Essentially, in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant¡¯s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary...

Having reviewed all the factors used in determining the appropriate sanction for the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the USG/DMSPC has provided sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and has established a rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ISA JAB was correct in determining that Ms. Nguyen was: (1) not entitled to a repatriation grant from ISA; (2) not entitled to payment for unused accrued annual leave, which was transferred to her subsequent employer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA; (3) not entitled to reimbursement for certain school supply expenses; and (4) not entitled to the non-removal allowance, which was a discontinued benefit. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the ISA JAB erred in denying Ms. Nguyen a relocation grant, and erred in denying her the travel expenses and travel time from Kingston, Jamaica to New York. The...

The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.

Decisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.

In the present case, the Applicant has not identified a reviewable administrative decision and there is no indication that he filed a request for management evaluation before submitting the application.

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/022.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...