±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/004. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the ±¬ÁÏÍø Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General ¡°to grant an appointment¡± to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member¡¯s appointment. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member¡¯s 2016 WAE...

The Tribunal found that the main issues for determination in this matter were 1) whether a temporary job opening limited to ¡°local recruitment only¡± is lawful, and 2) if the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. On the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that pursuant to section 1.1 of ST/AI/2010/4 Rev.1 (Administration of temporary appointments) the Organization may limit temporary job openings to local recruitment cannot stand. It also found that there were no legal grounds for the Respondent¡¯s assertion that limiting temporary recruitments...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman¡¯s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is¡ªif a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not¡ªthe application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...

The Tribunal noted that according to the Applicant¡¯s submission, he was notified of the contested decision on 19 May 2017. Therefore, the 90-day time limit to institute proceedings before the Tribunal expired on 17 August 2017. It followed that when the Applicant submitted his incomplete application by email on 21 August 2017, the statutory time limit had already elapsed. The Tribunal therefore found that the application was irreceivable ratione temporis.

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL Head...

The Organization¡¯s failure to state fully the selection criteria in the GJO constitutes a procedural error in violation of ST/AI/2010/3. The procedural error in the recruitment process did not impact the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered. Her application was fully and fairly reviewed by the hiring manager and it was within the reasonable discretion of the Organization to find that the Applicant¡¯s experience fell short of the minimum criteria.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT¡¯s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by ¡°officials¡±, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

Upon establishing an assessment panel and conducting competency-based interviews, the general rules and directives pertaining thereto must also be followed, even if the selection exercise is limited to rostered candidates. This must be particularly so where an election is made to follow such process, as in the current circumstances, pursuant to specific instructions from the USG/DM, and where the initial selection exercise appeared marred with irregularity so as to be set aside by the Administration. It goes without saying that a hiring manager and/or panel member should not be, or even be...

Since the Applicant withdrew the case, it is therefore closed.

At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

The Tribunal held that there is an appropriate correlation between the rating and the explanation as, in her comments, the FRO explicitly provides the factual bases for the negative performance rating. The Applicant never submitted a written statement to object against the performance rating and therefore the rating stands unchallenged. The Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to prove that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF did not act fairly, justly or transparently. The Tribunal held that it follows from the Applicant¡¯s self-appraisal that she herself indicated that she had received guidance, feedback and training...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...