Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it decided to give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded it to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for further proceedings.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in order for the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for translator services at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI could...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the settlement...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General has discretion in the appointment of staff, he has no discretion to impose unwritten regulations and rules that are prejudicial to staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...