Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no provision in the Staff Regulations or Rules stating that the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority to issue a written reprimand as a non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2(b) (i) was predicated upon and limited to the existence of an ongoing employment contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to hold otherwise would render baseless those standards of conduct that survive active service. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, from a practical perspective, it would stymie the Secretary-General¡¯s ability and discretionary authority to properly manage investigations and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT summary judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically whether General Assembly resolutions 63/250 and 65/247 apply to staff in the General Service category, and whether Staff Rules 4.14(b) and 4.16(b) apply to staff at the General Service level. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that Paragraph 23 of section II of General Assembly resolution 63/250 and Paragraph 50 of section VI of General Assembly resolution 65/247 include two categories of staff members in the United Nations Secretariat who have the right to be granted a continuing appointment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...