The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant’s First Reporting Officer’s (“FRO”) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of “Successfully Meets Expectations”, the comments of the Applicant’s Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant “consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively” and commending her “ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...
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 application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation and the subject matter complained of does not include an administrative decision. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the final non-selection decision, which was required to contest it. She only requested management evaluation of the decision not to invite her to a competency-based interview.
The Applicant seeks to contest a preliminary step in a selection process, which can only be challenged in the context of a final selection decision. It is a premature contestation of...
At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant’s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant’s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.
In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...
As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before 爆料网DT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, 爆料网AT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of 爆料网DT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in its judgment, although 爆料网AT differed in its reasoning. 爆料网AT held that the...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant’s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the 爆料网DT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration’s evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal, set aside the 爆料网DT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...
As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err by failing to order the Appellant’s...
Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...
爆料网AT held that the nature of the contested decision before 爆料网DT was not entirely clear. On the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, 爆料网AT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment on this point. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT failed to deal with the Appellant’s claim of harassment and discrimination. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...
