±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent¡¯s explanation as to why the Applicant¡¯s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant¡¯s complaint involved one specific incident, i.e., a chain of emails where his performance was being criticized, which evolved into two managerial decisions by his supervisors: a transfer of functions and instauration of a PIP. The Applicant perceived those emails as harassment. However, for a staff member¡¯s behaviour to be punishable as constituting the disciplinary offence of harassment pursuant to ST/SGB/2019/8, the analysis of said behaviour must pass a two-fold test: it must be found ¡°improper and unwelcome¡± and ¡°might reasonably be expected or be...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT shifted the burden of proof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment awarding compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an expression of interest by a staff member in the renewal of his or her appointment does not create a right of renewal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the document that Ms Beaudry signed acknowledging her performance rating and the recommendation of her supervisor for no further extension of her appointment was decisive documentary evidence in the case; she knew that the section of the form, providing details of the justification for the recommendation for non-extension, was not completed and nonetheless acknowledged the recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and, even assuming that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant¡¯s upgraded performance appraisal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the staff member¡¯s appeal seeking reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency¡¯s extension of the Appellant¡¯s...