Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member¡¯s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...

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 held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar in her letter. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Director General¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members¡¯ motion.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...