Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

On appeal by the Secretary-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a proper consideration of the whole of the evidence could only have led to one conclusion, and that is that the individual assaulted the victim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not consider the evidence objectively, specifically by giving misplaced importance to minor inconsistencies, coming to unreasonable conclusions on the facts which were not supported by the evidence, and making speculations instead of...

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid¡¯s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the staff member that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Outcome: The applicant is not entitled to have the note removed simply because no disciplinary proceedings were undertaken in respect of the investigation report. However, the note in its present form is inaccurate and must be removed. Its replacement, if any, must be accurate and first shown to the applicant, who must be given a copy of the investigation report to enable him to place such comment on the file as he wishes, providing it is reasonably connected to the investigation.

Demotion: A demotion is not a purely financial disciplinary measure, unlike a fine or loss of steps. It also carries a stigma and a loss of responsibilities. Discretion of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters: Due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General¡¯s choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure. Establishment of charges: If the disciplinary measure is justified with respect to the established facts in relation to a certain charge, it is not necessary to determine whether additional charges are also established. Violation of due process rights and compensation: Not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...

The Applicant¡¯s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...