Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, Mr. Lago¡¯s reliance on additional evidence without filing a motion, was inadmissible.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, there was no evidence that a specific request for an occupational health evaluation, made by Mr. Lago, in an individual capacity to an appropriate official, was refused or ignored. Additionally, Mr. Lago¡¯s requests mirrored his persistent attempts to challenge a perceived wrong, which on its own cannot be perceived as an implied administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of a clear request capable of giving rise to an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT therefore held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...