Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr was left bereft of any proper process through which his claims of harassment and discrimination could be addressed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s pleas that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Mr. Abubakr¡¯s predicament merited compensation was erroneous in law and fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that what Mr. Abubakr was being compensated for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was the harm caused to him by the fact that he was deprived, by virtue of the breach of his employment rights, of the statutory due process he should have benefited from, as provided for by ST/AI/308/Rev. 1. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it was not persuaded that the expert medical evidence produced could assist the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge, it would nevertheless uphold the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that Mr Abubakr¡¯s predicament merited a compensatory award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred somewhat on the generous side in comparing the due process deprivations suffered by Mr Abubakr to those in the Applicant case (judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/148). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reduced the compensation awarded to USD 25,000. Regarding Mr Abubakr¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional issues Mr Abubakr raised extended the scope of the case well beyond the previously agreed by the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the issues was capable of being litigated since no administrative review had been sought regarding them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Mr Abubakr had failed to establish that he sustained actual economic loss warranting compensation by reason of the PDOG¡¯s irregularities. Mr Abubakr¡¯s appeal was dismissed in its entirety. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in respect of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of monetary compensation, which was reduced to USD 25,000.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Abubakr challenged the Organisation¡¯s failure to address his complaint of harassment and discrimination seeking compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organisation had failed to properly address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination and, therefore, breached his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded Mr Abubakr USD 40,000 as compensation for the emotional distress caused by those failures but rejected the request for compensation for actual economic loss.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is vested with the statutory power to determine, in the circumstances of each case, the remedy it deems appropriate to rectify the wrong suffered by the staff member whose rights have been breached.