Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant¡¯s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant¡¯s husband served three years after the Applicant¡¯s separation. For these three years of non...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.

Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in entitlement fraud and received reimbursement for medical services that had not occurred. He falsely certified and submitted three Cigna claims; for which he was paid a total of USD17,171.26. He was not entitled to this reimbursement. As Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP is self-insured, these funds represented a loss to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP.

The Applicant¡¯s behaviour fell within what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices (approved in October 2018) defines as fraud. The established facts constituted misconduct.

As to proportionality of the...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna were not authentic. The Tribunal held that this was enough to substantiate the accusation that the Applicant used false documents to receive improper and undue economic benefits from Cigna. The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in misconduct through his submission of a fraudulent...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a ¡°decision¡±. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the only issue on appeal was the issue of appropriate compensation for the unlawful contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately found that the requested compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was unwarranted as it would exceed the emoluments to which he would have been entitled absent the unlawful termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in Mr. Kilauri¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the nature and level of the post he formerly occupied and the chances of renewal beyond the expiry of his fixed-term contract but for his unlawful...

Ms. Specker appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate. The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms. Specker¡¯s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases. The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...