Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant, by his own admission, failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the factors that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT considered as warranting exceptional compensation, were indeed exceptional, either individually or collectively. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s permanent staff status, his long service, his difficulties in finding subsequent employment, his status as a refugee, the unproven nature of the sexual harassment allegations, and the delays in his case, were not the type of circumstances that would warrant an exceptional compensation award. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in awarding in-lieu compensation above the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in consolidating the seven cases. The consolidated cases involved unique administrative decisions, and those decisions involved neither a common administrative policy nor a common set of facts. The nature of the misconduct attributed to the staff members was not similar among the cases. The cases concerned staff from different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA field offices. The disciplinary measures taken were not identical among the cases, but included a wide range of penalties. The standards of proof for the misconduct alleged in case varied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member¡¯s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2023/011 was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...