Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to fully assess...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer¡¯s representative and the original...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the record that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a rehearing de...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

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 noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...