Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In the current case, the Applicant only filed his request for management evaluation one calendar day before his application to the Dispute Tribunal and is yet to receive a response by management to his submission. Under staff rule 11.2(d), the Administration has 30 days to provide the management evaluation if the staff member is stationed in New York and 45 days if s/he is stationed outside New York. In the circumstances, the Applicant¡¯s application is premature and therefore not receivable.

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

/

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...