Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire s'¨¦tait content¨¦ de formuler des affirmations g¨¦n¨¦rales non ¨¦tay¨¦es selon lesquelles il poss¨¦dait les comp¨¦tences et l'exp¨¦rience requises pour conserver son poste. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que, comme l'avait estim¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre le Tribunal, le fonctionnaire n'avait pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ r¨¦futer la pr¨¦somption de r¨¦gularit¨¦ qui d¨¦coulait de la simple d¨¦monstration d'un fondement rationnel ¨¤ la d¨¦cision. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le dossier confirmait qu'il y avait eu une v¨¦ritable restructuration qui avait conduit au...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le jugement du Tribunal ¨¦tait probl¨¦matique parce que les conclusions du Tribunal semblaient ¨ºtre enti¨¨rement fond¨¦es sur des preuves par ou?-dire, c'est-¨¤-dire les conclusions du rapport d'enqu¨ºte du BSCI. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ que le jugement du Tribunal n'a pas expliqu¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve sur lesquels reposait sa conclusion selon laquelle le harc¨¨lement sexuel ¨¦tait hautement probable, et n'a formul¨¦ aucune conclusion explicite ou pr¨¦cise concernant les t¨¦moignages pr¨¦sent¨¦s sous serment ¨¤ l'audience. L¡¯incapacit¨¦ du Tribunal ¨¤ tirer des conclusions sur les t¨¦moignages qu...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment (as affirmed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk¡¯s case. The Administration had complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ¡°refund calculation¡± by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal¡¯s order constitutes in itself an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the finding that there was no causal link between the protected activity of Ms. Fosse and the detrimental behaviour of the Executive Secretary was a finding that a reasonable administrator could make. The conclusion that there was no causal link was based on the OIOS¡¯s investigation, its engagement with other staff, the documentary information evidencing the essentially undisputed problematic relationship between Ms. Fosse and the Executive Secretary, the perceived poor performance of Ms. Fosse, and Ms. Fosse¡¯s insistence on working only...

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Abou Salah¡¯s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

M. Hassan a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que sa requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione personae. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu qu'au moment de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection contest¨¦e, le requ¨¦rant avait cess¨¦ ses fonctions depuis plus d'un an et n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel. Il s'agissait d'un candidat externe qui n'avait pas qualit¨¦ pour contester la d¨¦cision de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner pour le nouveau poste d'associ¨¦ ¨¤ la r¨¦installation, dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision n'affectait pas ses anciens...

Mr. Hassan appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no ruling on this...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/030.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...