Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to upset the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was filed on time and was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the parties agreed to and identified the facts in their Joint Statement, it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conduct its own evaluation and then to substitute its view for that of the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct was of a grave and serious nature and in those circumstances, the sanction of separation was reasonable and not disproportionate and/or arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it reversed the Secretary-General¡¯s decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in concluding that the imposed disciplinary sanction was disproportionate and consequently substituting it for a lesser one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that serious misconduct was established and the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity was proportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the misconduct put public health at risk as the food was distributed with altered expiration dates to hide the fact of its expiration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction was neither absurd nor disproportionate and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had to be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Cobarrubias was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters, with which it would not lightly interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law when it found Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not accord any deference to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...