Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-018 (Mahdi)

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.

In reviewing the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in applying Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...