Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

A staff member challenged the decision of the Administration to cancel his secondment from one office to another. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found it was within the discretion of the Administration to cancel the secondment and that the reason for the cancellation (administrative delay) did not result in a fundamental breach of the staff member¡¯s rights. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the staff member was not treated fairly, because he was deprived of an opportunity to serve in a post for which he was selected. Thus, the tribunal awarded as compensation the difference between the salary the staff member received while working at the original office and the salary he would have received in the new office. The Commissioner-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment arguing that the tribunal exceeded its competence by awarding a form of relief (compensation for loss of salary) which the staff member had not actually sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Agency and found that the staff member had not sought that particular form of relief. Because loss of salary was not addressed the submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reasoned that the Agency was deprived of an opportunity to adequately respond to that claim. Also, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained given that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the Administration had acted lawfully when it cancelled the secondment and that the delay did not cause a fundamental breach of the staff member¡¯s rights, there was no illegality for which compensation could be awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus vacated the Judgment. The staff member filed an application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment.