Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-096). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from awarding any compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment awarding compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an expression of interest by a staff member in the renewal of his or her appointment does not create a right of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the document that Ms Beaudry signed acknowledging her performance rating and the recommendation of her supervisor for no further extension of her appointment was decisive documentary evidence in the case; she knew that the section of the form, providing details of the justification for the recommendation for non-extension, was not completed and nonetheless acknowledged the recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a (second) appeal by the Appellant. Taking into account that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had been presented with any submission on the merits of the case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Appellant to file a concise statement identifying the precise nature of his claim within 15 days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Procurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the reasons for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissing his appeal were valid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal.