±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law by...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first rejected his contention...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing ¡°non...

A staff member¡¯s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1030, para. 34).

The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

Accordin...

The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (¡°OIAI¡±) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant¡¯s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...