Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter under investigation was closed and the Appellant had not presented any cogent argument to show that there were exceptional circumstances that might otherwise have entitled him to the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to receive a detailed copy of the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of law and fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to reverse the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a legitimate expectation of a one-year extension was unequivocally created by virtue of the decision taken at the Core Management Group meeting. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that Mr Munir had a legitimate expectation and the decision of the Resident Representative not to seek a one-year renewal of his contract was an unlawful exercise of discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate that the compensation was unreasonable because there was a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in concluding that the imposed disciplinary sanction was disproportionate and consequently substituting it for a lesser one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that serious misconduct was established and the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity was proportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the misconduct put public health at risk as the food was distributed with altered expiration dates to hide the fact of its expiration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction was neither absurd nor disproportionate and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/028, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/029 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/076). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is competent to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both applications.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law when it found Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not accord any deference to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ST/AI/2003/8 was inapplicable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant administrative instruction was ST/AI/2010/3, which integrated the recruitment, placement, promotion and mobility of staff within the Secretariat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in its view, the authority to make lateral transfers to fill job openings at the same level extended to both immediate and anticipated job openings, including posts that would become vacant due to retirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decision complied with the legal...