±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the undisputed breach of confidentiality in the selection process provided rational grounds for the cancellation decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the Appellant had access to information about his test score and that he was perhaps seeking to influence the decision through the hiring manager, rendered the selection exercise problematic and unsatisfactory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the perception was unavoidably created that the Appellant was inappropriately favoured with access to information about a decision concerning his interests and in respect of which he enjoyed no authority...

Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson¡¯s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

Mr. Krioutchkov appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the timing of the written test was justifiable in that holding the test at a set hour worldwide was a rational way of avoiding leaks of the test materials. The inconvenience to the Administration of accommodating different test schedules outweighed the inconvenience of Mr. Krioutchkov being required to adjust his schedule. The scheduling decision was accordingly reasonable. Moreover, having refused to participate in the written examination, Mr. Krioutchkov was estopped from challenging the non-selection decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established according to the applicable standard? It was alleged that during the Cox¡¯s Bazar all-staff retreat in February 2020, the Applicant: a. Grabbed V01 from behind her and held her tight with his hands around her waist to the front of her body. He rested his head on her back while he pulled her back so that the front of his body rested against the back of her body. V01 did not consent to him touching her; and b. Hugged V02 from the front side of her body with his body pressed against her body. He hugged her with both his...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had performance shortcomings as evidenced by the 2016 to 2019 ePADs and by the fact that he failed to initiate the 2020 ePAD.

The Applicant was aware or could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the required performance standards.

The Applicant was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standard and the Administration did not err by not availing him more opportunities to improve considering the totality of circumstances in this case.

The totality of circumstances supported a finding that the termination of the Applicant's appointment was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Preliminary matter: the use of prior conduct evidence The Applicant argues that his due process rights were violated during the investigation, particularly by the irregular use of prior conduct evidence which allegedly created a bias against him and masked the lack of clear and convincing evidence in relation to the sexual harassment complaint. The Tribunal considers it is proper and not unlawful for the Organization to consider the staff member¡¯s background and behaviour towards others in the context of a disciplinary case, as long as it is relevant, uncontroversial and probative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

The Applicant contested the imposition of disciplinary and non-disciplinary measures following the completion of a disciplinary process thus, she was not required to request management evaluation as per staff rule 11.2(b). In accordance with art. 8.1(d)(ii), her application should have been submitted directly to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within 90 calendar days of her receipt of the administrative decision. The Applicant received the sanction letter/contested decision on 1 April 2022, which meant that she had to file her ±¬ÁÏÍøDT application on or before 30 June 2022 to be within the prescribed time limits. She...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not dispute the fact that he did not request management evaluation within the 60-day statutory period of staff rule 11.2(c). He did not dispute the fact that while the 60-day period commenced on 25 January 2021, he mailed his request for management evaluation on 16 April 2021, more than three weeks after the expiration of the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, since the Applicant did not seek management evaluation in a timely manner, his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant¡¯s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reviewed the submission of the Secretary-General that Ms. Lekoetje had already repaid the amounts due to the Organization when she separated from service. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT acknowledged that Ms. Lekoetje agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s position, and confirmed that USD 20,987.91 had already been deducted from her final entitlements.

Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted this position, and interpreted Judgment No. 2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1227 as requiring a payment by the Organization to Ms. Lekoetje of a sum equal to one year¡¯s net base salary, but without any further deductions.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred with respect to the period for which the staff member was entitled to an SPA. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the requirements for an SPA had been met for the period 1 August 2015 to 31 January 2018, but due to the timing of his request in December 2018, he was entitled to payment only starting 21 December 2017. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that even this payment was in error, because the staff member¡¯s claim to the SPA was made several years after the entitlement to the initial payment came into play in August 2015. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...