Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and M Akyeampong on the issue of whether Ms Akyeampong could be denied a promotion on account of the two reprimands. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the two reprimands had not been an obstacle to Ms Akyeampong filling a D-1 position or being recommended for a promotion. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the presence of the two reprimands had not debarred her from being promoted during the 2009 annual promotion session. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT allowed Ms Akyeampong¡¯s appeal in part, rescinded the impugned decision and dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, with Judge Weinberg de Roca dissenting.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Akyeampong contested the decision to not promote her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found that the High Commissioner committed a procedural irregularity in the promotion session. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rescinded the contested decision and ordered compensation as an alternative to the rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rejected Ms Akyeampong¡¯s claim for material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rejected Ms Akyeampong¡¯s claim for moral damages, finding that Ms Akyeampong had no chance of being promoted even if no irregularity had occurred.
Legal Principle(s)
A reprimand is not an adverse entry like an entry relating to sanction post-disciplinary proceedings. A reprimand is recorded in the staff member¡¯s file to serve as a reminder and should the staff member commit misconduct again, the Administration may administer a harsher sanction.