±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by ±¬ÁÏÍø Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that ±¬ÁÏÍø Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how ±¬ÁÏÍø Women...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her claim was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant¡¯s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.

The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...