Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted with concern that the JAB had been dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration; it was also alarming that the Administration had dismantled the JAB with no successor in place, denying the staff members access to justice in the interim. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no judgments or decisions from the JAB against which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT could evaluate the requested relief. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motions had become moot as the JAB had since been reconstituted and a panel to consider the requests for suspension...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...