±¬ÁÏÍø

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant¡¯s post was established and funded and¡ªby a subsequent exclusion¡ªalso showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍø Women¡¯s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (¡°G-3¡±). The Respondent...

Based on the facts as presented in the application, the Tribunal determined two issues; (i) whether the Applicant was forced to retire, and (ii) whether the decision not to renew her FTA beyond 30 June 2021 was lawful. On issue one, the Tribunal held that based on the separation notice given to the Applicant dated 18 May 2021, read together with the Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment and the evidence produced by the MONUSCO Chief of Human Resources during the hearing, there is no doubt that hers was a case of non-renewal of appointment. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant was not forced...

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant¡¯s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment was based solely on speculation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error of fact in stating that the OPT Allowance was paid in local currency, which led ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to commit an error of law in stating that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was only applicable to the Jerusalem Allowance and not the OPT Allowance, which was paid in US Dollars. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such an error of law would be inconsequential if its second line of reasoning, that no rule or policy requires the CAF be applied to the OPT Allowance, was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no rule requiring...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not detect any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that the reason ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...

The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant¡¯s...