Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Administration had approved such leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that that the Appellant¡¯s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1055. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

It was a reasonable exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion to determine that intentionally abusing a position of power and trust against a beneficiary of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA in a vulnerable situation rendered Mr. Al Khatib unfit for further service with the Agency, and separation from service without termination indemnity was neither unfair nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

The staff member appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF job. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an ¡°official act¡± and as such carried with it ¡°the presumption of regularity¡±. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...

The evidence and submissions on record are insufficient to determine the material issue as to whether the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation totaled less than, or in excess of, USD 25,000, in order to determine the authority of the Secretary of the ABCC to take the contested administrative decision. Hence the remand to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine whether the Secretary of the ABCC had the valid power to take the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...

On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there...

Noting that the Appellant passed away during the course of the litigation and before the hearing of the appeal before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim, namely her challenge to the Administration¡¯s refusal to move her back to her previous position, did not pass to her legal successor(s) in interest, no action is allowed to be commenced by her personal representative or successor in interest and that, under the specific circumstances of the case and due to the nature of the dispute, the issue in dispute was moot. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue in dispute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that Mr. Adriantseheno had been charged solely with sexual harassment, that his behavior towards Vo1 and Vo2 did not constitute sexual harassment, and that his due process rights were violated.