Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General¡¯s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the staff member against her former supervisors (FRO and SRO) led to investigations whose reports were the basis for disciplinary processes and sanctions against both persons, as well as an additional administrative measure against her former SRO. The Administration acted promptly, when unofficially informed of the wrongdoing, by placing the staff member on certified sick leave for approximately two months, before reassigning her at her request to a new workplace. The letter informing her of the action taken also contained the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant physically assaulted another staff member and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant¡¯s misconduct. Importantly, the Appellant did not establish a degree of provocation that mitigated her retaliation which was also excessive and beyond the bounds of any permissible defense in the altercation.

The findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by applying the improper legal framework, the relevant legal framework not being ST/SGB/2008/5, but the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Disciplinary Framework and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Harassment Policy. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, being one of the separately administered funds of the Organization, has its own legal framework and is not regulated by the Secretariat¡¯s general administrative issuances such as ST/SGB/2008/5, unless otherwise stated or unless it has expressly accepted their applicability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it found that Mr. Toson¡¯s request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant¡¯s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that since the Appellant¡¯s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was...

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award for compensation in lieu of rescission included the additional cost incurred by the staff member in maintaining two households as a result of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, given the application for interpretation, it was reasonable for the Administration to await the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s interpretation. However, the Secretary-General is ordered to fully execute the original Judgment and pay to the staff member USD 450 within 30 calendar days from the issuance of the current judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, given the delay in execution and in the...

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

The Tribunal held that tax reimbursement is governed by a specific and unique legal regime carefully deliberated upon by the General Assembly. Staff regulation 3.3(f) cannot be read into ¡°other payments¡± in staff rule 3.17(ii).

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant¡¯s understanding that payments under staff rule 3.17(ii) relate to all staff and all nationalities of the United Nations and are not restricted only to USA citizens as in the case for reimbursement of income tax under staff regulation 3.3(f). Hence, the two cannot be read together or have same application.

The Tribunal also agreed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a ¡°decision¡±. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...

The Tribunal decided on its own initiative and in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, to adjudicate the present application by way of summary judgement.

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant filed her application on 5 March 2023 indicating that the contested decision was made in October 1995, that is, more than 27 years earlier. Consequently...

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant¡¯s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant¡¯s husband served three years after the Applicant¡¯s separation. For these three years of non...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that some of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were speculative, disregarded the evidence and misapplied the applicable legal framework. In particular, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member¡¯s conduct was not serious because it endured for a limited duration of time. He not only sexually harassed two women but sexually harassed those two women twice in quick succession. His cumulative behaviour exhibited a disposition, which in this instance caused the complainants significant discomfort and anxiety and impacted on their ongoing professional relationship with him.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵA...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...