Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...

The Appellant challenged Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae as he did not make a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that, in actuality, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT erred in making an award of interest, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are final and without appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this attempt to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on her application for a suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made to its own judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...