Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the Applicant commented adversely on V01¡¯s clothing during his visit to the National Committee. However, while acknowledging that the comments may have been out of line given that he had no supervisory role over the staff in the National Committee, the Tribunal does not find that evidence supports that this conduct had a sexual component. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant compared V01¡¯s age to his son while stating that he tried to avoid speaking to older women. The Tribunal is also satisfied...

The Tribunal held that staff members¡¯ obligations under staff regulations 1.2(a), (b) and (f) are not limited to the work environment but also apply in a certain way to their private lives. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted physical conduct of a sexual nature that might reasonably be excepted or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to the complainant. There was no doubt that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. The Tribunal found no grounds to review the level of the sanction imposed on the Applicant.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the re...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its judgment, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT differed in its reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

There was no express indication that the Judgment of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court was executable upon issuance, neither was the issue investigated by the administration in the proceedings leading to the impugned decision. Rather, pertinent documents focus on the finality, apparently presumed from the title ¡®Final judgment of dissolution of marriage¡¯. The title should not have been relied upon. The contested decision was not based on a court order whose enforceability was unequivocal. The Tribunal did not find any indication of the judgment by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s intervention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...