Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal which held that, unless the Administration had made an express promise that gave a staff member an expectance of extension, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending an appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had suffered no material harm from the series of renewals for short...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was well within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no merit in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in deciding that the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s contract was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was aware that a high school diploma was an essential qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his contract was conditional upon him producing proof of this qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was also aware that the consequence of failing to satisfy this requirement was the non-renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the decision not to renew was neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the 60 days¡¯ deadline for the staff member to request management evaluation started from 18 March 2011, the date of the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was, therefore, receivable pursuant to Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the repeated renewal of appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave Mr. Igbinedion a legitimate expectation of renewal, was per incuriam and contravened clear and consistent jurisprudence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...