±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in its prior Judgment the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency¡¯s job classification tool had been used to reclassify the staff members¡¯ posts. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred when it had decided the case in the absence of the full document of the International Civil Service Commission¡¯s ¡°Master Standard for Classification¡±. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Classification Reports were relevant and sufficient for the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s determinations.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that notwithstanding the various anomalies in the reclassification process, the staff members had failed to show anything specific that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency¡¯s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10.As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the reclassification request was made by ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL and not by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...