Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches ¡°for several years¡± and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed, however, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

The Applicant¡¯s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a ¡°jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact¡± of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...