Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

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...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076) and Wu (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-042), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted...

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/129 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/130. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since it had rescinded the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton¡¯s likely prospects of success. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Mr Appleton¡¯s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Goodwin and the Secretary-General limited to the issue of compensation. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to award pecuniary damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held (with Judge Faherty dissenting) that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT such as would entitle Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to interfere with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Appellant had been properly compensated for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held t that the substantive and procedural breaches identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of themselves merited an award of moral damages because of the harm caused to Mr Goodwin, namely his having...