±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (±¬ÁÏÍøDP) on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

In any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant¡¯s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration¡¯s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

The Respondent discharged the evidentiary burden of minimal showing that the decisions regarding abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post leading to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and separation were lawful. The witnesses were credible, their evidence was cogent, reliable, consistent and corroborative. It was not contradicted in any meaningful manner. After examining the Applicant¡¯s and his witnesses¡¯ testimonies, the Tribunal was not convinced that the Applicant has made a clear and convincing case to rebut the presumption that the abolition of his post leading to the non-renewal of his...

The Tribunal found no merit in the application. In particular, the Tribunal found no grounds for the Applicants¡¯ claim that the contested decisions were unlawful or that they were subject to gender discrimination. The Tribunal found that neither Applicant qualified for sec. 6.3(a)(i) parental leave by operation of sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2, which set a cutoff date of 1 January 2023, nor did they qualify for the 10 weeks special leave under the transitional measures since they did not give birth and were not on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. The Tribunal found that since the Applicants did...

The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...