Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, that the assault committed was not misconduct and that the Organisation¡¯s jurisdictional competence did not extend to the physical assault of a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member even where the assault is perpetrated by a staff member, was based on reasoning which was unsupported by law or the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, not only the issue had not been raised in the case presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but such a proposition had also no foundation in the staff regulations, staff rules, administrative instructions, or jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unnecessary for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the error committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that parties before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remained legally valid until such time as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order was vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.