±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund¡¯s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was obliged to consider.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT or the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2025/001.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...