Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reversible error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that both parties agreed that a redaction of name would only be justified if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment was affirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it considered that the identification of Mr. Mobanga by the complainant in the photo array was not reliable on the basis that the use of MONUSCO grounds passes in the array may have influenced the complainant. Noting that all of the photos were marked ¡°MONUSCO¡± and so it did not stand out or influence anyone, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the photographs constituted evidence that...

Administration¡¯s discretion in constituting interview panels for temporary appointments - It is within the discretion of the Administration as to how the interview panel for a temporary position is constituted as long as the composition of the said panel is consistent with the requirements of ST/AI/201/4/Rev. 1.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

International standards on retrenchment and retention: There are international norms and standards regarding the termination of employment of work due to economic, technological or structural change, and the rights of retrenched workers and of staff representatives. The International Labour Organization Convention on Termination of Employment (Convention No. C158) (1982), which contains provisions applicable to all branches of economic activity and to all employed persons (art. 2), states at art. 4 that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

Findings of fact by the Appeals Tribunal ¨C As a matter of general principle, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to question a finding of fact or a ruling on the law as set down by the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ¨C A staff member who raises a credible claim which needs to be tested ought not to be shut out at a preliminary stage. There is a difference between a claim that is clearly not receivable because it does not challenge an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1 and a claim which on the face of it raises an apparently credible challenge that a decision of general...