Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Kamynyi¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s appeal in its entirety and held that it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level and that such a reassignment is lawful if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s request for legal costs, noting that no legal costs were owed to a party when the opposing party had not abused the process. With...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the established facts showed that the Appellant¡¯s negligence as Head Storekeeper facilitated the misconduct of other staff members and his negligence was evidenced by the excess of merchandise in the storeroom under his control, and by his failure to keep an inventory of the items in his custody. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant neither successfully rebutted these facts, nor demonstrated any flaws in the administrative and disciplinary procedures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction of demotion was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with interest was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB¡¯s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...

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 considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/146 on compensation by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that once a judgment on the merits has been vacated and no liability on the part of the Administration has been established, a judgment on compensation cannot stand if it would be contrary to the final decision on the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the judgment on compensation was not necessary if the legal basis for the award of compensation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT no longer existed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal (as unnecessary) and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

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 an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi¡¯s favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered ¨C or even favoured for reasons of gender ¨C in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo review.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, although not all allegations of misconduct against Mr Masri were proved, some of the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that Mr Masri met vendors at his home outside working hours and discussed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) contracts, he received the benefit of interest-free loans from two vendors, and he gave assistance to a...