Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the weight of the evidence, in that case, justified the decision taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, while acknowledging the importance of confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, that due process did not always require that a staff member defending himself against disciplinary action for summary dismissal had the right to confront and cross-examine his/her accusers. Under certain circumstances, denial of this right did not necessarily fatally flaw the entire process, so long as it was established to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s satisfaction that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/034 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Perelli was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

On the alleged procedural error of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed this ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management¡¯s (OHRM) advocacy and information...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...