2023-蘑菇视频AT-1323, Elena Korotaeva
L'蘑菇视频AT a rejeté l'appel. L'蘑菇视频AT a d'abord jugé que l'蘑菇视频DT avait commis une erreur en droit dans l'application rétroactive de la règle 193.3 (c) rétroactivement lorsqu'elle a examiné son droit à une indemnité de licenciement. Au moment où la décision contestée a été prise, seuls les règlements et règles du personnel de l'OMM 2019 étaient en vigueur et auraient d? être appliqués. L'蘑菇视频DT a fait une erreur dans l'application de la loi 2020 en fonction de la soumission par le Secrétaire général de la mauvaise version des réglementations et règles de l'OMM à l'蘑菇视频DT. L'蘑菇视频AT a confirmé la conclusion...
2023-蘑菇视频AT-1333, Hasmik Egian
Les unis ont confirmé les conclusions de l'蘑菇视频DT selon lesquelles (1) quatre des six incidents sous-jacents à l'environnement de travail hostile contre l'appelant n'ont pas été établis, mais que deux incidents étaient; et (2) l'appelant avait illégalement interféré avec un exercice de recrutement qui a également créé un environnement de travail hostile. L'inat a rejeté l'affirmation de l'appelant selon laquelle, parce que les 蘑菇视频T considéraient que certaines actions n'étaient pas du harcèlement, elles ne pouvaient pas constituer une faute. Alors que certains commentaires de l'appelant sur la...
2023-蘑菇视频AT-1333, Hasmik Egian
The 蘑菇视频AT upheld the 蘑菇视频DT’s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The 蘑菇视频AT rejected appellant’s contention that because the 蘑菇视频DT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...
2023-蘑菇视频AT-1327, Husein Taha Abu Heija
The 蘑菇视频AT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member’s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.
Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The 蘑菇视频RWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the 蘑菇视频RWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...
2023-蘑菇视频AT-1323, Elena Korotaeva
The 蘑菇视频AT dismissed the appeal.
The 蘑菇视频AT first held that the 蘑菇视频DT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The 蘑菇视频DT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General’s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the 蘑菇视频DT.
The 蘑菇视频AT affirmed the 蘑菇视频DT's finding that the Administration’s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...