Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was appealed by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed the scope of judicial review by reviewing the facts and concluding that there was sufficient evidence of inebriation but concluding there was a lower level of alcohol consumed based on the breathalyzer result. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the imposition of the sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity was disproportionate to the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant¡¯s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-757) as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the Appellant¡¯s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant¡¯s unauthorised absence from duty. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-091) from the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...