Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that beyond reporting the possible prohibited conduct concerning non-compliance with the United Nations financial rules and regulations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the staff member had no further interest in law in the conduct of the investigation or its outcome. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there was no basis for his assertion that OIOS had declined to conduct an investigation into his report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding the application concerning this decision not receivable.

Regarding the staff member¡¯s complaint of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the decision was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had not implicitly withdrawn delegated authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) when the Chef de Cabinet sought advice from the USG/DMSPC.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the USG/DMSPC reasonably rejected the report of the March 2020 Alternate Chair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed that the Administration was empowered impliedly to decline to act on a report that it considered as having exceeded its authorized parameters. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the USG/DMSPC had the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the health insurance premiums imposed by the UPU in 2023 differed according to factors such as age, retirement status and country of residence.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no support for the appellants' contention regarding the principle of solidarity used in the Swiss social security law, as for several years such principle had no longer been applied by the UPU.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the rate of the UPU¡¯s contribution did not differ between the various age groups and there was no evidence that the premium increases were inconsistent with the costs the insurance provider...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the transitional measure ¨C granting 10 weeks of special leave with full pay (SLWFP) only to mothers who were still on maternity leave on 1 January 2023 ¨C was not unlawfully discriminatory.

It found that, while it might be argued that preferring birth mothers over fathers in the transitional arrangements between the old and new parental leave regimes was discriminatory, it was not unlawfully discriminatory for two reasons: i) the desirability of breastfeeding in circumstances that are inconsistent with their mothers also working full...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant¡¯s First Reporting Officer¡¯s (¡°FRO¡±) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of ¡°Successfully Meets Expectations¡±, the comments of the Applicant¡¯s Second Reporting Officer (¡°SRO¡±) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant ¡°consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively¡± and commending her ¡°ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in an Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member¡¯s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...