2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1023

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan��s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with Ģ��ƵRWA was reasonable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring Ģ��ƵRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a medical board to consider that staff member��s future employment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred by deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than two months after the staff member��s service-incurred injury was unlawful and that therefore the termination was unlawful. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in taking into account additional evidence in the form of medical certificates produced by Mr. Sirhan after the Medical Board had reported to Ģ��ƵRWA in order to overturn the conclusions of the Medical Board, noting that Mr. Sirhan had had the opportunity to present such evidence to the Medical Board before it reached its conclusions. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment was erroneous. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed Mr. Sirhan��s appeal, allowed Ģ��ƵRWA��s appeal, and set aside the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment. Judge Colgan dissented.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his service on medical grounds. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the decision to convene a medical board less than two months after the service-incurred injury in order to examine the staff member��s fitness for continued service was manifestly unreasonable and failed to give him adequate time for recovery. Ģ��ƵRWA DT ordered rescission of the decision to terminate the staff member��s service on medical grounds or payment of compensation in lieu.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵRWA has a broad discretion to require a staff member to undergo a medical examination at any time it may consider necessary. Additional evidence not presented at the first instance, despite a party having had the opportunity to present it at that time, is generally not admissible on appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted

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

Sirhan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry