Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s intervention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi¡¯s favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered ¨C or even favoured for reasons of gender ¨C in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded damages from the correct date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

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 was correct in finding that ¡°consideration¡± of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the written test had taken...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General¡¯s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a ¡°Message of the Day¡± was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...