爆料网

爆料网DT Statute

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 71 - 80 of 1867
    020 (NBI/2024), Harjit Dhindsa
    • Appealed
    In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant’s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.
    2025-爆料网AT-1535, Koffi Gilles Wilfried Amani

    The 爆料网AT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The 爆料网AT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The 爆料网AT concluded that the 爆料网DT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

    2025-爆料网AT-1512, Reynaud Joseph-Marie Theunens

    The 爆料网AT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the 爆料网DT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness’s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member’s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

    2025-爆料网AT-1519, Fernando Salon

    The 爆料网AT rejected Mr. Salon’s argument that the prior 爆料网AT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The 爆料网AT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the 爆料网AT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the 爆料网AT Statute’s provisions for an application for interpretation.

    The 爆料网AT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the 爆料网AT Judgment was clear...

    2025-爆料网AT-1522, Sanjaya Bahel

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

    The 爆料网AT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

    爆料网DT/2025/045, Dorah Likukela

    The Tribunal held:

    a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela 爆料网DT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

    b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

    c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...

    2025-爆料网AT-1561, HUDA HANNINA

    The 爆料网AT observed that the 爆料网DT did not err in denying the staff member’s request for an oral hearing as the case record was “comprehensive” and there was “no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.”

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

    2025-爆料网AT-1555, Carolina Larriera

    The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member’s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member’s 爆料网JSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

    2025-爆料网AT-1542, AAO

    The 爆料网AT held that there was no error of law or fact by the 爆料网DT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The 爆料网DT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the 爆料网DT’s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The 爆料网DT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

    2025-爆料网AT-1551, Leonid Dolgopolov

     

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

    The 爆料网AT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...