±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's decision on receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General¡¯s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the staff member against her former supervisors (FRO and SRO) led to investigations whose reports were the basis for disciplinary processes and sanctions against both persons, as well as an additional administrative measure against her former SRO. The Administration acted promptly, when unofficially informed of the wrongdoing, by placing the staff member on certified sick leave for approximately two months, before reassigning her at her request to a new workplace. The letter informing her of the action taken also contained the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant physically assaulted another staff member and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant¡¯s misconduct. Importantly, the Appellant did not establish a degree of provocation that mitigated her retaliation which was also excessive and beyond the bounds of any permissible defense in the altercation.

The findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by applying the improper legal framework, the relevant legal framework not being ST/SGB/2008/5, but the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Disciplinary Framework and the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Harassment Policy. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, being one of the separately administered funds of the Organization, has its own legal framework and is not regulated by the Secretariat¡¯s general administrative issuances such as ST/SGB/2008/5, unless otherwise stated or unless it has expressly accepted their applicability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that Mr. Toson¡¯s request...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Appellant¡¯s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that since the Appellant¡¯s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was...

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...