Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the staff member that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...

The Tribunal will not order the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement as were the original harm repaired, the Applicant¡¯s appointment would already have ended. While the evidence before the Tribunal suggested that extensions of secondments beyond the five-year limit were possible under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP policy, the Tribunal was not convinced that it was probable in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the renewal would have been limited to the five-year restriction and compensation was warranted for that period, less the Applicant¡¯s actual income. Account is taken of the context of the contractual breach i.e...

.Outcome: The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant USD10,000 in compensation for emotional harm.

The Tribunal granted the application in part and awarded the Applicant USD18,000 in moral damages: USD3,000 for each of the six RC position for which she applied in her August and November 2013 job applications (the appeal against other non-selection decisions was not found receivable as it had been made out of time). When assessing the Applicant¡¯s relevant applications, it was unlawful for the EG to not nominate the Applicant as this decision was based on her 2012 performance appraisal report, which, at the given time, was still under rebuttal, and not on the last three performance appraisal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant three months¡¯ net base salary as moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant¡¯s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decisions and awarded USD50,000 in non-pecuniary damages.