±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all arguments made on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/100, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that a ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to conduct a fresh investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...