±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant acted diligently with respect to the filing of his request for management evaluation and met the deadlines set forth by the MEU. This is particularly relevant as the reason for the elapsed time to file such request was the attempt at informal resolution of the dispute under the auspices of the ±¬ÁÏÍøOMS. The application is receivable ratione materiae. As the parties entered mediation before the Applicant¡¯s filing of a request for management evaluation, the applicable provision for the calculation of the 90-day deadline to file an application is art. 8.1...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...

The Applicant¡¯s attempt to hug V01 did not on its own qualify as an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favour or verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature or any other behaviour of a sexual nature. The Applicant¡¯s asking for V01¡¯s room number on multiple occasions did not constitute sexual harassment. The facts did not establish sexual harassment as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 and as interpreted in various jurisprudence. The Respondent¡¯s investigations were skewed toward finding a case for sexual harassment regardless of the inadequacy of evidence to substantiate the...

In the absence of any evidence of ongoing mediation efforts or request for suspension of deadline to file an application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant, having filed his application outside of the statutory deadline. In any event, given that the contested administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 3 April 2019, the request for management evaluation of 8 September 2019 would have missed the 60-day deadline set in staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation. Given that settlement discussions are confidential in nature, it is the parties¡¯ responsibility to...

The Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to place her on administrative leave is not receivable since she failed to file a request for management evaluation as required. The Tribunal found that on the preponderance of the evidence, the Administration failed to demonstrate that the Applicant shouted at two staff members as charged. It was only established that the Applicant ¡°expressed irritation¡± toward one staff member and she ¡°lost her cool¡± and ¡°spoke sharply¡± to another staff member. The Tribunal found that these behavior did not amount to harassment or abuse of authority and thus did...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicants were misled in that they were not clearly informed, despite their inquiry, that their non-participation in the written test would be taken into consideration in the evaluation of their candidacies. Thus, the Administration violated its duty to act transparently and in good faith with the Applicants. The Tribunal finds that the Administration cannot reasonably take into consideration the performance of a staff member in separate recruitment exercises, even less so when such exercises took place several years prior. The performance in prior selection...

The email identified by the Applicant as the contested administrative decision does not constitute a fresh decision but a mere restatement of a previous email. It therefore cannot be considered to produce consequences on the legal order and is therefore not a challengeable administrative decision. The Applicant failed to contest the assignment of her current functions when notified to her. Therefore, the Applicant would be barred from contesting at this point that such assignment was in non-compliance with her contractual rights or conditions of employment.

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The evidence on record, including the investigation report, the coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the Applicant¡¯s contradictory statements, and the inherent probabilities of the situation in the working and living conditions, cumulatively constitute a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, the acts of sexual harassment. Do the established facts legally amount to misconduct? The Tribunal finds...

The Applicant, a ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff member in between assignments (¡°SIBA¡±), was placed on SLWOP after having exhausted a nine-month period on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The Tribunal reviewed the legality of the contested decision in light of the arguments put forward by the Applicant. Is the contested decision consistent with staff rule 5.3? The Tribunal found that the circumstances for the placement of SIBAs on SLWOP are per se exceptional and, consequently, the text of para. 139 of the RAAI is consistent with staff rule 5.3. Staff rule 5.3(f) sets the general principle that a staff...

1)Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established: Transmission of pornographic images: Regardless of the Applicant¡¯s intent, the Tribunal found that it is established by clear and convincing evidence that he transmitted pornographic images (images of male genitalia) to and from his ±¬ÁÏÍø Women email account. Incidents involving Mr. SL: Considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal found Mr. SL¡¯s accounts credible which were corroborated by other evidence. It was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant inappropriately touched Mr. SL and...

Was the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post lawful? Given that the role of the Tribunal is not to decide whether the Administration chose the best course of action among those available to it and in the absence of evidence of illicit motive, the Tribunal finds that the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post was lawful. The Tribunal finds that the Administration has given reasons for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract and has shown that the decision was neither arbitrary nor improper. Did the Applicant have a right to ¡°return to work¡± at the completion of her maternity leave...

The Tribunal held that there was no breach of the applicable procedures in the selection process. The Administration acted in accordance with the ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL guidelines for the selection of staff members. The Applicant was clearly given a full and fair consideration as demonstrated by the fact that she advanced through the process until the final stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s continuing appointment was unlawful as its purported basis (insufficient funds) did not exist. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not necessary for it to deal with the issue of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its finding that the Administration failed to comply with its obligation of retention. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the abolition of the post due to financial reasons did not subsist for judicial review. On the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in finding Mr Nugroho...

The Secretary-General appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment as it related to the non-renewal decision only. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a shifting onus of proof was appropriate where the non-renewal decision was based on a lack of funds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found nothing objectionable with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reference to the burden or onus of proof resting with the Secretary-General in the circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the Secretary-General failed to establish by evidence that the financial situation of the ±¬ÁÏÍø body which had engaged Ms Loose at the time of the separation was still...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable on the basis that the Appellant was not challenging the new scheme for education grant introduced by the General Assembly, but rather the manner in which it was implemented in her specific case and the way in which the Secretary-General interpreted General Assembly Resolution 70/244. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in deciding that the Appellant did not have an acquired right to all of the previous education benefits she had enjoyed. On the question of the Appellant¡¯s access to a discretionary consideration of her claims on exceptional grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Hamdan and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that Mr Hamdan¡¯s appointment was not terminated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject Hamdan¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...