Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the settlement...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct had been established...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in concluding that the imposed disciplinary sanction was disproportionate and consequently substituting it for a lesser one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that serious misconduct was established and the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity was proportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the misconduct put public health at risk as the food was distributed with altered expiration dates to hide the fact of its expiration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction was neither absurd nor disproportionate and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...