Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reclassification request was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL and not by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that ST/SGB/2003/13 imposes a requirement of ¡°undue advantage¡± for sexual exploitation to occur. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the former staff member abused the position of vulnerability of V01 for sexual purposes (i.e., engaging in at least four acts of sexual intercourse), which constitutes sexual exploitation and abuse. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT itself acknowledged that V01, allegedly a minor, was vulnerable and less powerful than the former staff member, and that his actions had a sexual connotation. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant¡¯s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent¡¯s request for an award of costs.

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said¡¯s Official Status File. In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...