Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the vacancy had been advertised for only ten days which violated the mandatory requirement of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Personnel Directive, and this violation had been corrected by cancelling the recruitment process and constituting another one that met the requirement of the minimum posting period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not identified the alleged defects of the impugned Judgment but rather had reargued his case and, therefore, had not discharged his burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the impugned Judgment had been in error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its calculation of the reduction of the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit, the Pension Fund had determined the rate of the overall cost-of-living adjustment due to benefits in accordance with the movement in the US consumer price index since the date of the last adjustment to be 6.4 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Fund had then prorated the overall adjustment rate in proportion to the length of time the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit had been in payment and had determined that the inflationary adjustment due to him was 7/12 of 6.4 per cent, equal to 3.7 per cent...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness¡¯s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member¡¯s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that it was established that the former staff member diverted funds contributed to the United Nations Staff Union to support Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Staff Day to the United Nations Athletic Club (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAC). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed that even if the former staff member did not obtain personal gain, she misused her office for the private gain of a third party, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAC, which constituted misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that irrespective of what the former staff member¡¯s work environment was like, it cannot justify misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that any form of dishonest...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and was denied.