Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Outcome: Appeal upheld. Decision held to be a breach of staff regulation 2.1 and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Respondent ordered to pay compensation of the difference in salary, allowances and other entitlements between the applicant¡¯s current level and the level at which she should have been classified since the date she made her request. Respondent ordered to pay compensation for non-material damage due to frustration and humiliation compounded by delays at six months¡¯ net base salary.

Break in service: The Tribunal has not found a policy on mandatory breaks in service and no document has been produced recording it. The respondent has failed to demonstrate a consistent application of the practice of enforced separation between temporary contracts. Further, there was a deliberate delay in progressing the appointment of the applicant which was to her detriment. Compensation: The applicant is to be placed in the position as if there had been no such break in service in May 2008. The manner in which the applicant was treated, aggravated by the exercise of an abuse of power...

There was substantial impact on the applicant¡¯s life and work, which was both foreseeable and a direct result of the breach. Injury to career prospects: It is reasonable to infer that the applicant will probably be promoted in due course and that this prospect has been delayed by his failure to achieve the position in Geneva. This is economic loss. The court proceedings were burdensome, stressful, and time consuming, but this matter is inextricably involved with the denial, up to the judgment, of the applicant¡¯s rights, and will be sufficiently recompensed as part of the award for the breach...

The Applicant asserts, inter alia, that she was harassed and discriminated against and that her performance evaluation process was not in accordance with the established procedures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was based on lawful grounds and was not vitiated by any improper considerations or procedural errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that there was an unreasonable delay in the rebuttal process. Although this delay had no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, it caused emotional distress to the Applicant, for which she shall be compensated...

The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the ¡°scheduled workday¡± and actual work (¡°hours of work¡±) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that DGACM¡¯s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM¡¯s policy and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her contract in a timely manner and also did not rebut her final e-PAS rating as partially meeting expectations, which rating must be accepted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as final. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was aware, during her employment, of the criticisms concerning her performance and that it would have been reasonable for her to conclude that performance-related factors may have been considered by the Administration in deciding not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that under Costa 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036 it does not have the power to waive or...

In the present judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months¡¯ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...