Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01¡¯s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant¡¯s handling of V01¡¯s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

Although not constitutive...

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that¡ªin the hypothesis that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018¡ªit would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant¡¯s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it decided to give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to decide on remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made several findings on the appeal. First, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...