±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erroneously concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the former staff member¡¯s knowledge that he was in a prohibited family relationship with another staff member, Mr. S.R.B.

Moreover, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that even if the information provided by the former staff member was false, he could not have intended to mislead the Organization by providing or omitting it. On the contrary, the evidence established that when he made his relevant applications, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Mr. S.R.B. was employed by the United Nations. In...

While Nepalese law and custom may be relevant based on the Applicant¡¯s reluctance to culturally accept this designation of half-brother as applicable to him, Nepalese law cannot be deemed the applicable law of the United Nations when referring to employment matters within the Organization. The applicable law of the United Nations is seen and accepted as is promulgated in the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations. The latter applies to employment matters.

While the Applicant wanted to raise his preferred belief that the law of Nepal should apply because he is Nepalese and so is his...

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant¡¯s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to overturn a policy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/178 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.

The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...