Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was submitted to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and M Akyeampong on the issue of whether Ms Akyeampong could be denied a promotion on account of the two reprimands. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the two reprimands had not been an obstacle to Ms Akyeampong filling a D-1 position or being recommended for a promotion. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the presence of the two reprimands had not debarred her from being promoted during the 2009 annual promotion session. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed Ms Akyeampong¡¯s appeal in part, rescinded the impugned decision and dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, with Judge Weinberg de...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Kamynyi¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s appeal in its entirety and held that it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level and that such a reassignment is lawful if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s request for legal costs, noting that no legal costs were owed to a party when the opposing party had not abused the process. With...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the established facts showed that the Appellant¡¯s negligence as Head Storekeeper facilitated the misconduct of other staff members and his negligence was evidenced by the excess of merchandise in the storeroom under his control, and by his failure to keep an inventory of the items in his custody. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant neither successfully rebutted these facts, nor demonstrated any flaws in the administrative and disciplinary procedures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction of demotion was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Worsley¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA¡¯s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA¡¯s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT previously considered in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly stated that the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant¡¯s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and financial award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to accept her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for revision.