Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant¡¯s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant¡¯s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The Applicant was separated from service for submitting false information in three claims for dental treatment to the Medical Insurance Plan provider, Cigna, for reimbursement. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because during the investigation he was properly informed of the subject and purpose of the interview and afforded sufficient notice. He also had no objections as to the conduct of the interview when asked at the end of his interview. With respect to the claim that the Applicant insisted was, in fact, genuine, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation had not been...