±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA in tranche 2 list. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was still pending. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid¡¯s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the ±¬ÁÏÍøTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by finding a valid contract of employment between Ms Al Hallaj and ESCWA since no letter of appointment was issued, only an offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a quasi-contract was formed, considering that Ms Al Hallaj had unconditionally accepted and had fully fulfilled all the conditions specified in the offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the ESCWA Administration committed two major errors, in breach of its quasi-contractual obligations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ESCWA Administration failed in its due diligence to specify clearly and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

A matter cannot be before the MEU and the Dispute Tribunal simultaneously and allowing applicants to circumvent this process and file applications with the Tribunal before the deadline for a response to a request for management evaluation has passed would contravene the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure, undermine the time lines set out in the Staff Rules, and would be contrary to the intentions of the General Assembly.