Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member¡¯s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member¡¯s position. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The Tribunal found unsubstantiated the alleged procecural and substantive irregularities in the lateral transfer of the Applicant to the position of CEO of GPH. The Applicant was well aware of both his lateral transfer and the business model of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR, which is dependent on external funding. Also, the Applicant's letter of appointment clearly stated that his appointment was limited to availability of funds.

Moreover, the Applicant argued that, instead of being placed on SWLOP until the end of his temporary appointment, his contract should have been terminated, pursuant to para. 9(c) of AC...