Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to grant Mr. Nair¡¯s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the confusion presented by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that ¡°no misconduct occurred at all¡±, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had ¡°repeatedly reacted and used hostile language¡± which justified, in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s deference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in such matters, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...