Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

AAF appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As the Secretary-General had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no ruling on this...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/030.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the different periods of ALWOP on which Mr. Okwakol was placed, were the subject of a single and continuing administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that each of the three identifiable periods was the subject of consideration or reconsideration of the circumstances at that time. On each occasion, the Organisation took a decision about the state of the misconduct investigation and its ongoing nature and advised Mr. Okwakol accordingly. It was not decisive or even material that the renewals of the ALWOP were referred to as extensions of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did he point out any...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

While it is...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...