Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in applying Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed the staff member¡¯s appeal seeking reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency¡¯s extension of the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Regarding the lateral moves, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact, that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of ¡°lateral move¡± in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/179. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...