Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Cobarrubias was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters, with which it would not lightly interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

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 held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...