±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the staff member that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

Appeals dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable, the ICSC decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour¡¯s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in Mr Dabbour¡¯s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing to indicate why ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in stating that it had no jurisdiction as Mr Kebede¡¯s claim concerned the internal affairs of the staff union, and therefore, an area protected from employer interference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that error was without consequence because Mr Kebede¡¯s claim for compensation was otherwise time-barred per Staff Rule 3.17(ii). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in finding that Mr Kebede¡¯s application for a transfer was not receivable for lack of jurisdiction.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar¡¯s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was erroneous. Additionally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of ¡°incapacitation¡± is a purely medical...