Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Approving Authority in this case acted contrary to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF's staff selection legislation and policy. The undue influence exerted by the Approving Authority on the Selection Panel which let to a reversal of its earlier decision concerning the Applicant's suitability is evidence in the stark contrast of the Selection Panel's position when it stood its ground early in the selection process following a query by the Local Central Review Body as to why it found the Applicant suitable. The Approving Authority in this case by directly approaching the Selection Panel to...

The Tribunal held that the decisions to issue a Notice of Counsel and to require the Applicant to undergo remedial training did not affect his legal rights. The decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction was procedurally flawed because, contrary to the Department of Safety and Security Manual of Instruction on Use of Force Equipment Including Firearms (¡°DSS Weapons MOI¡±), the Chief of the SSS did not state the expected duration of the measure. The Tribunal rescinded the decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction without indicating the expected duration and ordered the...

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found that by filing her request for management evaluation only on 21 April 2015, the Applicant failed to respect the 60 day time limit under staff rule 11.2(c), which started to run as of 5 January 2015, the day of her signature of the letter of appointment. Subsequent responses from OHRM in response to queries from the Applicant were merely confirmative decisions of the original decision of 5 January 2015. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...

Restructuring: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s position and core responsibilities did not change as a result of the decision to reintegrate the Unit into one. He was to continue to perform the same duties although without the additional task of acting as the supervising officer of staff in the Operations Section of the Unit. Consultation: The Tribunal concluded that since the changes made to the Applicant¡¯s functional and reporting arrangements were not significant and did not alter his substantive position, the Administration was not strictly obliged under section 5(c) of ST/SGB...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in hearing his complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and do...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Appellant of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2015/003. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in any way when it dismissed her application finding it to be moot, an outcome which was a natural consequence of the administrative rescission of the impugned decision, circumstances that contemplated the staff member¡¯s claim and rights, solving the previous irregularity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request to amend her application to seek compensation for material and moral damages was filed after she had received notification of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member¡¯s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that as no request for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant¡¯s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was disingenuous for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...