Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation for loss of earnings for seven months from the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment (as an alternative to the order for reinstatement of the staff member) plus an additional amount of two years¡¯ net base salary. The Secretary-General maintained that, while the total of these amounts exceeded the compensation limit of two years¡¯ net base salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not particularize any reasons to justify an increased award under Article 10.5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Article 10.5(b) does not require a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors of...

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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to accept her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ¡°Applicant¡± (anonymity granted) against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/079. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s case that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke¡¯s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that when it determines that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified that this did not...