2014-Ģ��ƵAT-398

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. Ģ��ƵAT held that the misconduct had been established and the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnities adopted in this case was proportionate to it. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service on the grounds of gross negligence. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application and found that the decision to apply the sanction of separation from service without termination indemnities, but with compensation in lieu of notice, was fair and proportionate. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had failed to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised with respect to a reasonably foreseeable risk by allowing Mr. Weah, of the Seatrans Shipping Stevedoring Company, possession of the Bill of Lading, which contained all the container numbers and information, and the Bill of Charges and Container Receipt, which allowed Mr. Weah to locate containers on his own and to go with the forklift operator to collect the WFP containers, having Mr. Weah misappropriated the Organisation��s property. Ģ��ƵDT found that these serious failures had costed the Organisation a loss of property valued at USD 190,000. The Applicant filed a request for waiver of the time limit to appeal and was granted seven days.

Legal Principle(s)

In Haniya (judgment 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-029), Ģ��ƵAT held that, when reviewing a disciplinary sanction imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Kamara

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement