Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯ancien membre du personnel a ¨¦t¨¦ mis en cong¨¦ administratif sans solde (ALWOP) dans l¡¯attente de la conclusion d¡¯une enqu¨ºte men¨¦e ¨¤ son encontre pour faute professionnelle. Au moment o¨´ le d¨¦cideur a envisag¨¦ de prolonger la dur¨¦e de l¡¯ALWOP, seul un projet de rapport du Bureau des services de contr?le interne (BSCI) ¨¦tait disponible.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait, ¨¤ tort et de mani¨¨re d¨¦finitive, substitu¨¦ sa propre appr¨¦ciation des faits ¨¤ celle de
l¡¯Administration. Elle a admis ¨¤ tort des rapports d¡¯expertise ind¨¦pendants ¨¦tablis a posteriori comme pertinents pour la fiabilit¨¦ des...

Le 19 mai 2024, l¡¯agent est revenu ¨¤ son lieu d¡¯affectation apr¨¨s un cong¨¦ de repos et de r¨¦cup¨¦ration (R&R). La p¨¦riode de service ouvrant droit ¨¤ ce cong¨¦ ¨¦tait de 28 jours et il pouvait pr¨¦tendre ¨¤ un nouveau cong¨¦ R&R ¨¤ compter du 16 juin 2024. Il a quitt¨¦ son lieu d¡¯affectation le 13 juin 2024. Il a demand¨¦ un cong¨¦ de repos et de r¨¦cup¨¦ration pour la p¨¦riode du 23 au 27 juin 2024.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait quitt¨¦ son lieu d¡¯affectation en partant du principe que les jours suivants, du 14 au 22 juin 2024, qui comprenaient ¨¤ la fois des jours ch?m¨¦s, des jours f¨¦ri¨¦s...

Le fonctionnaire, qui occupait le poste de charg¨¦ adjoint des droits de l¡¯homme de classe P-2, a postul¨¦ au poste de charg¨¦ des droits de l¡¯homme de classe P-4. Le responsable du recrutement a proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ un examen sur dossier des candidatures et a, ¨¤ l¡¯issue de celui-ci, d¨¦cid¨¦ de ne pas retenir le fonctionnaire. En cons¨¦quence, sa candidature n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ retenue dans le cadre du
processus de s¨¦lection.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait jug¨¦ impossible de d¨¦terminer si le document produit par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, refl¨¦tant
l¡¯¨¦valuation par l¡¯Administration des comp¨¦tences, de l¡¯exp¨¦rience et de...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur de droit et de fait, aboutissant ¨¤ une d¨¦cision manifestement
d¨¦raisonnable, en omettant de prendre d?ment en consid¨¦ration l¡¯article 66 de la directive de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA relative au personnel de
terrain n¡ã PD/A/4/Partie II/Rev. 7/Section I, qui vise ¨¤ garantir l¡¯¨¦quilibre entre les sexes, et lorsqu¡¯il a pris en compte, ¨¤ tort, la
recommandation concernant le troisi¨¨me candidat, ce qui l¡¯a conduit ¨¤ fixer ¨¤ tort les chances de s¨¦lection de Mme Al Dawoud ¨¤ 50 % au lieu de 100 %. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la section 66 exprime une pr¨¦f¨¦rence pour...

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯elle n¡¯avait pas comp¨¦tence ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard de Mme Fogarty, car celle-ci ¨¦tait une ancienne employ¨¦e de l¡¯OMI et que la d¨¦cision qu¡¯elle contestait ¨C ¨¤ savoir l¡¯absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte de la part de l¡¯OMI ¨¤ l¡¯encontre du directeur de l¡¯administration ¨C n¡¯avait pas d¡¯incidence sur les conditions de son ancien contrat de travail. Le TNA a relev¨¦ qu¡¯il avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦tabli, dans son jugement n¡ã 2026-TNA-1620, que le comportement du directeur de l¡¯administration, dont Mme Fogarty se plaignait, n¡¯avait entra?n¨¦ aucune cons¨¦quence n¨¦gative pour elle en ce qui concerne sa demande de prestations...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait commis aucune erreur de fait ni de droit en concluant que le comportement de la fonctionnaire constituait une faute grave.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait examin¨¦ les explications fournies par la fonctionnaire concernant les erreurs commises lors de la pr¨¦sentation des demandes de subvention pour l¡¯¨¦ducation sp¨¦cialis¨¦e, mais qu¡¯il s¡¯¨¦tait prononc¨¦ contre elle en se fondant sur son ¨¦valuation de son manque de cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que ses conjectures quant aux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve qu¡¯un t¨¦moin potentiel aurait pu apporter relevaient de la simple...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait fourni aucun motif ¨¤ l'appui de son recours, dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait pas r¨¦pondu aux conclusions de la Commission de recours concernant l'irrecevabilit¨¦ de sa demande devant celle-ci, et qu'il n'avait donc pas
satisfait ¨¤ l'obligation qui lui incombait de pr¨¦senter des arguments en faveur de son recours. Aucun argument n'a ¨¦t¨¦ avanc¨¦ qui
aurait permis ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT d'examiner si la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'un vice de forme.

Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ le recours et a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.