Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to justify its findings of ¡°moral injury¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of ¡°moral injury¡± without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the allegation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly rejected the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the staff member¡¯s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts ¡°as found by the Dispute Tribunal¡±, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...