The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in applying Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/179. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...
