Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years¡¯ net base...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reversible error on part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s challenge which related to the comments of...