±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law by...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member committed sexual harassment towards the Complainant by: i) entering her accommodation without invitation, hugging, kissing, and licking her forehead without her consent, reclining her on her bed to lie next to him, and refusing to leave when asked; and ii) telling her the following day that she had been unable to sleep because she had been thinking of him.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had provided a clear and reasoned analysis of the witnesses¡¯ credibility.It concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that certain discrepancies in the Complainant¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s legal framework.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her claim was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...