Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appellant¡¯s appeal primarily challenged the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant¡¯s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

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...

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 denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Modey-Ebi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issues in the appeal were entirely factual, most of which were resolved on the evidentiary record which in most respects established a pattern of misconduct justifying dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while some of the proven allegations against Ms. Modey-Ebi were less serious than others, cumulatively they revealed a pattern of unethical conduct indicating that Ms. Modey-Ebi was not suited for the senior position she held. Her behaviour revealed a lack of propriety and integrity and her behaviour was inconsistent with her duties under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the staff member that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Motion for extension of time was refused. Abuse of process of the Tribunal.