±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no room for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to substitute its decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, challenging ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application, as it related to the second contested decision, was filed on time and was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General, that the official holiday at the New York Registry on 5 September 2016 is irrelevant for the determination of the timeliness of the individual¡¯s filing before the Nairobi Registry. Although the case was later transferred to New York, on 6 September 2016, this case was still recorded as pending before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Nairobi and the filing of all documents in that month was expected to...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that it does...

The Appellant sought reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

MOn the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the application was receivable in its entirety, as each of the three decisions taken on ALWOP were distinct and the Appellant failed to seek management evaluation of the first and second decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the application was only receivable ratione materiae in respect of the third and last decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the extension of the Appellant¡¯s ALWOP was a material error of law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that 12 months ALWOP was...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that knowledge of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.