±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion lawfully to consolidate the cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned decisions were taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew the Limited Duration Contracts at the time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants' argument with regard to their acquired rights being violated was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s appointment. The staff member¡¯s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a ¡°dry cut.¡± A ¡°dry cut¡± happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1055. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, finding that the staff member¡¯s FTA was not terminated but rather, it expired in its own course. The Tribunal highlighted that a termination is initiated by the Secretary-General, under Staff Rule 9.6(a), and in the instant case, the staff member was not at all terminated on 30 May 2019. Instead, his FTA continued until its expiry on 30 June 2019, and until then, he retained his full position, rights and entitlements as a staff member of the Organization. The fact that the site was closed down, and the staff member was sent home with no work to do, is not...