Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Secretary-General filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the determination of which staff members should be compared is ¡°primarily guided by the functional title as per the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment¡±, there can be cases where the functional title does not reflect the actual functions performed as in the present case. In these circumstances, the CHRO must determine which individual falls into which occupational group. Ms. Barud¡¯s role and functions changed in May 2018 to a Facilities Management Assistant. Therefore, at the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application in relation to the non-renewal decision was moot because the non-renewal decision never materialised was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal decision was overtaken by the Appellant¡¯s separation for health reasons and that the Appellant had not challenged the actual decision that ultimately resulted in the termination of her employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on compensation for moral...

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration¡¯s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that it would have been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.