The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency¡¯s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10.As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.
It found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...
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...
It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-335).
The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
