±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s legal framework.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member...

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

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 noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...