±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez's appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s argument of apprehension of partiality of the hiring manager claiming that there was an improper motive to unfairly eliminate him. The Appeals Tribunal found that the mere fact that the hiring manager was involved in two selection exercises in which Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was not successful did not indicate any partiality, but rather a regular exercise of the Administration¡¯s routine of selecting candidates for advertised positions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding no irregularity in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its consideration of the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s experience against the evaluation criteria; the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that ¡°none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening¡±, and concluding that ¡°at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria¡±. In so doing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Disciplinary Framework, the assessment of the facts of misconduct is not exclusive to OAIS, but that the Director of the Department of Human Resources (Director/DHR) must also analyze the evidence, and such analysis could lead DHR to a different conclusion than that of OAIS. Accordingly, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Administration had the authority or locus standi to proceed with a disciplinary process even in the absence of a finding of misconduct by OAIS. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

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...

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant¡¯s objection to General Assembly¡¯s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. ±¬ÁÏÍøDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant¡¯s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...