Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...