±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The Applicant was found suitable for available positions. Indeed, for one job opening, he was one of the eight candidates short-listed and convoked to interview. By shortlisting him, the Administration tacitly acknowledged that he was deemed suitable for the position; per Timothy ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2017/080, as a continuing appointment holder facing termination, the Administration was obliged from that point to consider his candidacy on a preferred, non-competitive basis.

The Tribunal found that the Administration failed in its obligation to make good faith efforts to absorb the Applicant into a new post...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations...

The Tribunal decided on its own initiative and in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, to adjudicate the present application by way of summary judgement.

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant filed her application on 5 March 2023 indicating that the contested decision was made in October 1995, that is, more than 27 years earlier. Consequently...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

AAF appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. As the Secretary-General had...