Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT/114), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-078) and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contentions against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/080, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to order his reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...

The Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Cabrera¡¯s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in this case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not agree with the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Appellant appealed the amount of damages awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and claimed additional compensation for the excessive delay of more than four years, from the date she requested an administrative review to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had been adequately compensated and noted that, unless she could show that she was singled out to work more than her similarly placed colleagues, it would be difficult to conclude that the Chief demanding a higher work output from the Appellant constituted harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant¡¯s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant¡¯s reliance on erroneous advice...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...