Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in deciding that the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s contract was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was aware that a high school diploma was an essential qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his contract was conditional upon him producing proof of this qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was also aware that the consequence of failing to satisfy this requirement was the non-renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the decision not to renew was neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no statutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC¡¯s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not properly review the impugned administrative decision to determine whether the Administration had given full and fair consideration to staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had fully complied with Section 1 of ST/SGB/2009/10 and paragraph 5 of the Guidelines, as it must when considering whether a staff member is eligible for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made a significant error of law in concluding that the impugned decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and allowed it in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that the AJAB found a series of violations of her rights as a staff member, but had not awarded commensurate compensation, had merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the IACO breaches identified by the AJAB were fundamental in nature, (i. e. The treating of a temporary assignment as permanent, discrimination of the staff member, failure to make good faith efforts to find alternative positions, and refusing to provide access to personnel and confidential files) and the breach itself gave rise to an award of moral damages by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the staff member and the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact was undisputed that the staff member knowingly presented non-existent credentials despite questioning the ethics of accepting the document with his qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that termination was not disproportionate to the offence, taking into account that the staff member¡¯s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which never would have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...