Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration¡¯s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, although not all allegations of misconduct against Mr Masri were proved, some of the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that Mr Masri met vendors at his home outside working hours and discussed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) contracts, he received the benefit of interest-free loans from two vendors, and he gave assistance to a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on merits only became final when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the judgment on compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, even assuming that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded it to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for further proceedings.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to reject the Appellant¡¯s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with interest was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/075 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/076. On the issue of being barred from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV premises, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has jurisdiction over applications filed by a staff member, former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. However, given that the Appellant was not a staff member at the time he was barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not complain that the decision was not in compliance with his terms of appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as a holder of an SSA contract, the Appellant was no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the recommendations did not constitute administrative decisions subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in the decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Bofill was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than she had and she would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on her non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dualeh was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than he had and he would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on his non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant¡¯s upgraded performance appraisal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...