±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal concluded that the promulgation of ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, which restrictively redefined enrolment-related fees, did not conform to General Assembly resolution 70/244. As such, its promulgation was an abuse of the Administration¡¯s discretion and its application in reviewing the Applicant¡¯s education grant for her son was unlawful.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was correct in that the fees that she claimed were admissible as tuition, in addition to being enrolment-related. Thus, the decision to deny reimbursement for those fees was unlawful.

The Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon¡¯s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance evaluation an ¡°administrative decision¡± with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding her application receivable.

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance as ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, nor any finding by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

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 held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by ±¬ÁÏÍø Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that ±¬ÁÏÍø Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how ±¬ÁÏÍø Women...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF to end...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT therefore held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements. Specifically, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates¡¯ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates¡¯ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a ¡°jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact¡± of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...