Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law, and followed binding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s direction in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that AJAB¡¯s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute or the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and ICAO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and WMO dated 20 January 2020. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...