Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its assessment of the selection process and that Ms Simmons did not substantiate claims of bias or prejudice on part of the interview panel. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, by virtue of the absence of any specific argument as to whether the claim regarding the 2008-2009 performance appraisal was receivable ratione materiae, having been made prior to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 325 (NY/2010), the Secretary-General was now estopped from raising such issue on appeal before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that an award of USD 3,000 was not reasonable compensation for the breach which occurred in relation to her 2008-2009 performance appraisal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not take sufficient cognisance of the seriousness of the breach or the stress it caused. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part, rejected the cross-appeal and substituted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s total award of USD 3,500 with an award of compensation equivalent to three months¡¯ net base salary in effect on 31 March 2008 and compensation equivalent to three months¡¯ net base salary in effect on 31 March 2009.