±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when the staff member had moved to North Carolina, he had not enquired whether or not he was obligated to pay the income tax of that state. Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the Secretary-General had erred in applying a one-year time limit to his request for reimbursement of his North Carolina state income tax for 2015-2018.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the language of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, interpretative doctrines, the legal regime of staff assessment, the hierarchy of the relevant norms and the apparent intent of the General Assembly. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Director General¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members¡¯ motion.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an ¡°equivalent certification¡±. In the present case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a ¡°management evaluation request¡±. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission¡¯s Chief of Staff, constitutes ¡°management evaluation¡± for the purposes of proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. It does not.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four-pronged...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had had ample opportunity to comment on her lateral transfer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that she had been aware of the recommendation to separate her from her First Reporting Officer, against whom she had made a complaint of prohibited conduct, and had had the opportunity to voice her concerns and also had been informed of the reassignment decision nearly a month before she took up the new post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted that the responsibilities and job functions of the new post had been commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence, skills, and experience. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified ±¬ÁÏÍøDP as the respondent in the present case because it was ±¬ÁÏÍøDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2023/036...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...

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...

The Applicant failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the selection process for the Post was tainted by any unlawful actions or that he suffered any harm as a result of the contested decision. Accordingly, his application was dismissed and his claim for compensation was rejected.

The assertion that the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that his candidacy would receive special consideration since he had performed the functions of the Post for five years was misplaced. He did not seriously dispute the fact that the creation of the Head of Office position was not a...

The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant¡¯s circumstances and has no intention of jeopardizing his health in any way. At the same time, it considers the Applicant¡¯s active participation in the proceedings essential to ensuring the fair adjudication of his case. The Tribunal concurs with the Respondent¡¯s assertion that ¡°the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is contingent upon the individual exercising this right having a legitimate interest in initiating and sustaining legal action.¡± The Applicant voluntarily initiated these judicial proceedings and, as such, has a vested interest...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the central tenet of the staff member¡¯s case, which was that he held the necessary academic qualifications for the role, but that the selected candidate did not. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the educational specifications in the job vacancy announcement were a minimum threshold, but not the determining factor in the selection. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both the staff member and the selected candidate met the threshold academic qualifications, even though they obtained them by different means. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the claim that the ITLOS should not have taken into account that the...

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to Mr. Qasem¡¯s exclusion from consideration for the Acting Head position, that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding Mr. Qasem¡¯s application not receivable. The Appeals Tribunal however found that in the circumstances of this case, it was in the interest of judicial economy to review the case on the merits without remand. The Appeals Tribunal found that while the Administration had unlawfully excluded Mr. Qasem¡¯s application from consideration, this irregularity had no impact on the selection decision. Considering Mr. Qasem¡¯s performance, administrative and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...