Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing based on the length and complexity of the background of the appeal and that it was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to hold one. On the Appellants¡¯ argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had erred previously in establishing the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that they were effectively requesting a revision of two previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments and held that they were time-barred from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, as previously...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant¡¯s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-757) as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the Appellant¡¯s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...