Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/062. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration¡¯s withdrawal of the offer of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...