Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety. It held that the impugned decision was lawful because there was nothing on the record to suggest that the Respondent had acted outside the scope of lawful discretion in designing and conducting the selection process. In addition, the Applicant had not demonstrated that in his evaluation relevant material had not been taken into consideration.

The Respondent requested the Tribunal to redact the names of the victim and her family from ¡°any public filings in this case¡±. The Tribunal considered the request reasonable and decided to refrain from using the victim¡¯s name as well as the name of the members of her family in its judgment to preserve their privacy and to protect them from any negative repercussion. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Since the Applicant had been working for the Organization since...

Staff members are entitled to due process in relation to their complaints, not to a particular finding against another staff member or to a particular decision by the Organization towards another staff member. The Applicant¡¯s claims have all been comprehensively addressed by the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, and the Applicant failed to establish a basis for which further remedies should be granted. The application is rejected in its entirety.

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant¡¯s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related

The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant¡¯s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

nglÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the deceased staff member, Mr Pise, could have been under no illusion when he signed the payment instruction forms that he had opted to receive, in addition to a deferred pension, his own contributions plus interest as an immediate withdrawal benefit rather than a prospective survivor¡¯s benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was informed of that interpretation twice subsequent to his separation and did not challenge those determinations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Pise received the benefits payable to him in terms of the Fund¡¯s Regulations and there was no basis thereunder...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...