±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff members. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by failing to specify whether the alleged misconduct of sexual exploitation had been established to the required evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. Second, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in concluding that the victim was a vulnerable person, that Mr. Stefan was aware of her vulnerability, and that he sexually exploited her vulnerability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it made this finding without any independent or medical evidence, and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had relied on its own Internet research regarding various...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ICAO Appeals Board implemented internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the Appeals Board no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ICAO Secretary General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process. It further found that while it might have been open to ICAO to consider using the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for resolution of staff member disputes, it was free not to do so and cannot be criticised for doing as it did. It concluded that the Appeals Board¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB made considerable internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the JAB no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ISA Secretary-General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the plain reading of the facts left no doubt that: i) at the time when the contested decision was taken, there was no willingness of abandonment of post by the Appellant; ii) despite his poor mental health condition that was medically...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason why the Appeals Tribunal should intervene and modify the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings, which were both reasonable and equitable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while the hiring of the casual workers was not part of Mr. Saleh¡¯s official duties, Mr. Saleh coordinated and supervised the work of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR implementing partner which was responsible for hiring at the warehouse, and Mr. Saleh also had the function of overseeing the warehousing operations. Given these responsibilities, as well as his previous intense involvement in the setting up and management of the warehouse, which...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the facts suggest that the participant¡¯s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant¡¯s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that Mr. Suarez Liste be granted additional steps upon initial appointment contrary to the Grading Guidelines for language staff. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly broadened the definition and criteria of ¡°relevant work experience¡± in the Grading Guidelines to include additional academic qualifications. By doing so, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had created a new factor or criterion in the application of the Grading Guidelines, e.g., consideration of a Ph.D. in the step-in-grade calculation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was a policy...