±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that given that the Applicant failed to comply with the deadline for the filing of his request for management evaluation, his application was time-barred and his application was not receivable before the Tribunal.

There being no evidence that real ongoing informal resolution efforts took place between the date on which the Applicant was notified of the decision on 26 May 2011 and when he filed his request for management evaluation on 4 August 2011, the time limit was not extended and his request for management evaluation was not receivable (time barred). The Tribunal concludes that there was no genuine informal resolution efforts conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and there was no request for extension of time addressed to the Secretary-General by the Applicant. The 4 August 2011 request for...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. The Tribunal was of the view that it behoves the Applicant to submit to a classification review of her post in accordance with the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøON Administration had, prior to mid-2012 when the error was discovered, been miscalculating the amount of overtime and compensatory time off due to Security Officers and Drivers at ±¬ÁÏÍøON. The Security Officers, as a result had received payments in excess of what was due to them. Administrative errors - As held in Boutruche, the Administration has a right and even an obligation to put an end to illegal situations as soon as it becomes aware of them, while preserving any rights acquired by staff members in good faith. Staff-management consultations - No staff-management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found no basis for disagreeing with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s claim was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was evident that the Appellant knew of the process of management evaluation at the time of the impugned administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly exercised its discretion to award costs against the Appellant for abuse of the judicial process, as her failure to apply for management evaluation was deliberate and thus her application was frivolous and vexatious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The first issue ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered was whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the ±¬ÁÏÍø Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that ¡°[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management¡¯s (OHRM) advocacy and information...