It was a reasonable exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion to determine that intentionally abusing a position of power and trust against a beneficiary of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA in a vulnerable situation rendered Mr. Al Khatib unfit for further service with the Agency, and separation from service without termination indemnity was neither unfair nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.
The staff member appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF job. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an ¡°official act¡± and as such carried with it ¡°the presumption of regularity¡±. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...
The evidence and submissions on record are insufficient to determine the material issue as to whether the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation totaled less than, or in excess of, USD 25,000, in order to determine the authority of the Secretary of the ABCC to take the contested administrative decision. Hence the remand to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine whether the Secretary of the ABCC had the valid power to take the contested decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...
On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the 11 November 2018 letter provided notification of the final administrative decision subject to appeal, since it contained the key characteristic of producing ¡°¡¯direct legal consequences¡¯ affecting a staff member¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment¡±.
By including a paragraph about the possibility for a re-entrant to restore his or her prior contributory service under certain conditions in the A/2 form for designation of the recipient of a residual settlement, the Fund discharged its obligation to notify re-entrants such as Mr Duflos. There was no duty on the part of the Pension Fund to provide further information or clarification in that regard in the absence of any request from Mr. Duflos for information or clarification.
