Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member¡¯s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was ¡°re-employed¡± on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

The staff member¡¯s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the staff member¡¯s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56): ¡°¡­ By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant¡¯s personal dignity but also adversely...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from assuming a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on compensation for moral...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

The deadline for the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant¡¯s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration¡¯s appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was given ¡°too many tasks too fast¡± as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that the...

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant¡¯s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...