Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it did not configure abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The Dispute Tribunal referred the case to the Secretary-General to consider any appropriate action to ensure that proper oversight and accountability measures are in place, with particular reference to the role of the CRP in ensuring procedural propriety in decision making within its remit. The referral for accountability was not appealed and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not take a decision on it.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration had unlawfully applied an informal and not promulgated policy denying conversion to a permanent appointment to any staff member who had a disciplinary measure in his or her official records, regardless of the timing and the gravity of the underlying misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s assessment of the Applicant¡¯s suitability for conversion to permanent appointment was not aligned with the ¡°Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be considered as at 30 June 2009¡± (2009 Conversion Guidelines), which require the Administration to take into account two criteria (timing and gravity) in determining whether a staff member is suitable for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the rescission of the decision to deny the conversion and the retroactive conversion of the Applicant¡¯s appointment to a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also awarded the Applicant compensation for moral damages.
Legal Principle(s)
An appeal must be filed within 60 calendar days of the receipt of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The filing of the appeal has the effect of suspending the execution of the judgment. In the absence of an appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment becomes executable following the expiry of the time provided for an appeal. Either party may then apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for an order for execution of the judgment. However, there is no law that prevents a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order for payment from being effected before it becomes executable, which is what was done in the present case.