±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding and held that ¡°the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision¡± all support the conclusion that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member¡¯s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the moving party. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬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 held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

±¬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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The actions taken by the Chief of the Regional Service Center Entebbe (C/RSCE) towards the Applicant amounted to a clear breach of the authority entrusted to her as C/RSCE. Her conduct fell squarely within the definition contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 which is ¡°the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority against another person¡±. It was reasonably inferred that the C/RSCE either deliberately or negligently ignored the principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Respondent failed to...

Lawfulness of non-renewal decision: The Tribunal held that the instructions from ±¬ÁÏÍøHQ about the need for ±¬ÁÏÍøMIL to cut its budget by downsizing provided ample justification for the restructuring of the Mission which included the down-grading of a number of posts, including that encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reasons for the restructuring were genuine. Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was clear on its face that it was due to budget cuts and downsizing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reference to the abolition of the...

Downsizing: The Tribunal found that the decision to cut the Applicant¡¯s post and to not renew her appointment beyond its expiry was made in the context of the downsizing of the Mission. It was a rational decision made in light of the needs of the Organization. It was made and conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the information circulars. It was, with the exception of the short delay in conveying the actual decision, procedurally regular and lawful.Comparative review process: The Tribunal concluded noted that the functional title of the Applicant¡¯s post did not match the...

The Tribunal found that requiring candidates to such a post to type in Russian their answers to the written test was not unfair or unreasonable and noted that, in any event, this requirement was eventually lifted at the Applicant¡¯s request. The fact that graders may have been able to identify his test because it was handwritten or the fact that the Applicant was advised that he was allowed to handwrite shortly before the written test deadline do not vitiate the test, as they arise from the Applicant¡¯s desire to and result from the Administration¡¯s efforts to accommodate his concerns. Also, the...

Interpretation of art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal - The question arises whether the Tribunal should seek and obtain the concurrence of the Secretary-General before correcting a procedural error in the decision making process of the ABCC or the Secretary-General himself. The Tribunal in the circumstances of the present case is not prepared to allow its power of judicial review to be circumscribed by art. 10.4. It is not deemed that the concurrence of the Secretary-General is necessary to take the appropriate remedial measure if this is found to be necessary. The Secretary...

The Tribunal found that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Lateral transfer under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3: Sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3 explicitly provides for the possibility of transferring staff within their departments or offices to job openings at the same level without following the procedures laid down in the staff selection system. This provision does not...

Lawfulness of competency-based interview: On the basis of the context and requirements of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual and the Inspira Recruiter¡¯s Manual, the Tribunal interpreted section 1(c) of ST/AI/2010/3 as requiring that an assessment panel should normally have three members that must include a female and two subject matter experts. Given this interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the Panel was not properly constituted as it did not have two subject matter experts. The Tribunal accepted that in evaluating candidates for selection there is inevitably some overlap of the competencies...

There was a valid offer of employment made to the Applicant, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the Applicant acquired the status of an individual entitled to seek redress before the Tribunal. The act of requesting the waiver following the issuance, and acceptance, of the offer of appointment formed part of a continuum of events which should properly have led to the Applicant being appointed to the position she was sought out for. Noting that the decision not to appoint the Applicant would probably not be rescinded, the Tribunal, in the alternative, awarded her 18 months¡¯ net base salary...

The Tribunal was unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process had been rebutted by the Applicant. There was nothing to suggest that the Respondent was motivated by any improper factors in selecting a candidate other than the Applicant. The Applicant did not, even on a preponderance of evidence, establish that the selection process was not fair. The Tribunal could not conclude that the Applicant was subjected to any discrimination or that the selection exercise was tainted.

The Tribunal found that it was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had had sexual intercourse with two persons under the age of eighteen and that the sanction of dismissal, together with a fine, were proportionate to the established misconduct. This conclusion was independent from the outcome of the judicial proceedings before the national courts of Kosovo with respect to the violation(s) of the CCK. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine(1) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was...

Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the Administration was not fair, just, or transparent in its dealings with the Applicant over the discontinuation of his position. The procedure adopted for the discontinuance of the Applicant¡¯s position was not in accordance with the relevant rules, regulation and procedures. The Administration failed to comply with the Guidelines concerning the timing of the written notification of the proposal to the Applicant, discussions with the manger and submission of the proposal to the Budget Committee. The failure to immediately notify him of the...