±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor on appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no basis to overturn the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates¡¯ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, ¡°OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action¡±.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender parity had not...

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member¡¯s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent¡¯s fees.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...