±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1008. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/±¬ÁÏÍøEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

Noting the agreement between the Parties, and the Applicant¡¯s notice of withdrawal, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be dismissed.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

As the matter had been formally, although mistakenly, transferred to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in Nairobi and is registered in its records, it is appropriate to issue an order striking out the case so that this matter is formally closed on the court¡¯s docket and is properly recorded as such. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered that the application be struck out.

The Tribunal held that the Programme Manager failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s candidacy at the 15-day mark as provided by ST/AI/2006/3. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that she was put in a pool with 30-day mark candidates and that most of these candidates were considered before she was. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been fully and fairly considered because the Programme Manager and two of the Interview Panel members had deemed her unsuitable for the contested post prior to the commencement of the interview process. Since the Interview Panel failed to...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s submission did not contain any dates for the impugned acts, nor any succinct statement of facts and reasons to contest such acts. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of substance and abandonment of proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/059.

The complaint concerning the receivability of the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment was dismissed on two grounds. It was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation and secondly, because the Applicant was not in active service throughout the period of consideration as required by the provisions of section 2.6 of ST/AI/2012/3. The Tribunal found that the civilian staffing review conducted by the RSCE, resulting in the reduction of several posts, was conducted for a bona fide reason and its proposals were endorsed by the General Assembly...

Administrative leave; The Tribunal noted that the decision letter of 27 July 2017 conveyed that the decision was based on the reputational risk to the Organization in light of the allegations against the Applicant, relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an underage girl, and on the basis of the available evidence and findings of the investigation report.; The Tribunal was satisfied that the sensitive nature of the allegations, which were sustained by some evidence, justified the Administration¡¯s decision, in its exercise of discretion, to put the Applicant on administrative leave, in...

The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant¡¯s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be ¡°a unilateral decision taken by the...