±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were unaware of various ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also reasoned prior ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgments do not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-±¬ÁÏÍø staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified ±¬ÁÏÍø staff members, to whom the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first explained that this is a case where the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision?maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision?maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus found the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years¡¯ net base...

Mr. Kuate appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while the determination of which staff members should be compared is ¡°primarily guided by the functional title as per the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment¡±, there can be cases where the functional title does not reflect the actual functions performed as in the present case. In these circumstances, the CHRO must determine which individual falls into which occupational group. Ms. Barud¡¯s role and functions changed in May 2018 to a Facilities Management Assistant. Therefore, at the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application in relation to the non-renewal decision was moot because the non-renewal decision never materialised was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-renewal decision was overtaken by the Appellant¡¯s separation for health reasons and that the Appellant had not challenged the actual decision that ultimately resulted in the termination of her employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather...