Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

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 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 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 held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that it would have been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036)). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052), which was disproved by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...