Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the award that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered ought to have been made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that this error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not adversely affect...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT intervention...

nglÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...