±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2021...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

Mr. Pierre filed an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable. The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre¡¯s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...

Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation. Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...