±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization¡¯s ¡°zero-tolerance¡± policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± but ¡°reasonable grounds to believe¡±, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui¡¯s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an ¡°administrative decision¡± and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance evaluation an ¡°administrative decision¡± with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding her application receivable.

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance as ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to Mr. Qasem¡¯s exclusion from consideration for the Acting Head position, that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding Mr. Qasem¡¯s application not receivable. The Appeals Tribunal however found that in the circumstances of this case, it was in the interest of judicial economy to review the case on the merits without remand. The Appeals Tribunal found that while the Administration had unlawfully excluded Mr. Qasem¡¯s application from consideration, this irregularity had no impact on the selection decision. Considering Mr. Qasem¡¯s performance, administrative and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified ±¬ÁÏÍøDP as the respondent in the present case because it was ±¬ÁÏÍøDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2023/036...