爆料网

2016-爆料网AT-653

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant’s post). 爆料网AT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. 爆料网AT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade 爆料网AT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the reclassification of the Appellant’s post at the Ramallah Women’s Training Centre (RWTC) to Grade 18 was not implemented due to the ongoing reforms which resulted in the transfer of the RWTC’s Education Science Faculty (ESF) program to the RMTC, which in turn led to the elimination of the duties previously ascribed to the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s arguments of wrongdoing with respect to the Agency’s classification of her post or in relation to the 爆料网RWA DT’s review of that activity had become irrelevant in the face of the uncontested fact, namely, that the change in her tasks and respective duties formed the basis for the decision not to upgrade her post. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网RWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to upgrade her post from Grade 17 to Grade 18. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application. 爆料网RWA DT considered that the Applicant’s responsibilities, as of the 2013-2014 academic year, did not include the supervision of the professor and associate professor positions, unlike her counterpart at the Ramallah Men’s Training Centre (“RMTC”), whose post was upgraded to Grade 18. 爆料网RWA DT rejected the Applicant’s allegations of discrimination and failure to conform to other higher education systems and practices.

Legal Principle(s)

An appeal is not the appropriate occasion to introduce new elements for consideration that were not put forward at the trial level. The staff member attempted to convert the judicial review into an administrative exercise of post-classification by means of different technical or educational grounds. However, this endeavour is outside the scope of the judicial review.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
AlRifai
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type