±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot.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...

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration¡¯s appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was given ¡°too many tasks too fast¡± as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that 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 held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the reasons for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissing his appeal were valid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

±¬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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal, set aside the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

±¬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.