Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores provided the names of witnesses in her response to the charges and that there was no action taken by the Administration to interview such witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the failure of the Administration in this regard was an undeniable breach of Ms Flores¡¯ due process rights. On the issue of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order reinstatement due to the forthcoming expiration of Ms Flores¡¯ appointment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that unless the Administration had made an express promise, abused its discretion or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal was not unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Flores did not provide a compelling argument warranting any adjustment to the quantum of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.