Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Staff members with permanent appointments are afforded additional protections, particularly when nearing retirement age. Administration¡¯s obligation to protect the position of a permanent staff member includes, at least, an enquiry and the taking of reasonable steps to ascertain if there were any suitable positions available for the staff member. The staff member is required to cooperate in this search but the responsibility for protecting the position of the permanent employee is primarily with the employer.The universal obligation of both employee and employer to act in good faith towards...

The purpose of compensation: Since the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in, had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the Tribunal first determines the likelihood that the Applicant would have been offered a hypothetical new contract and thereafter the characteristics of it. Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had...

Compensation: The elements of Applicant¡¯s compensation were: applicable salary, plus post adjustment, less staff assessment, less pension contribution made by Applicant, less amounts paid to Applicant on separation, less mitigation damages earned by Applicant, plus accrued vacation, plus personal distress award of USD4,000, plus e-PAS violation of USD6,000. Pension: Since, based on the facts from Beaudry Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/039, it was unlikely that the Applicant would have had her contract renewed until her retirement, the Applicant would not have qualified for any retirement benefits, including...

Economic loss: Since the applicant was due to retire at the time the selection would have been made, his economic loss was the value of the salary and emoluments of an ASG, without any adjustment for the receipt of entitlements as a D-2 Director, which is a simple calculation of the gross earnings minus deductions, plus the respondent¡¯s subsidy contributions. Any actual income he made is adjusted against this amount. Pension: The pension calculation is more difficult. Two methods of calculation are open as the Pension Fund has stated it will not recalculate the applicant¡¯s pension: the first...

Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF properly complied with its own rules. Length of a new contract: Had Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF fulfilled its obligations, the Applicant would have been offered a new contract as a two-year fixed-term appointment. Possible renewal: It could not be assumed that, had the Applicant been offered a new contract, then this contract would automatically have been renewed indefinitely¡ªthe...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...

30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3¡ªin particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III¡ªthat applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. The application was dismissed.