Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mr. Moulana appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵATnoted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande de rectification du jugement de M. Zaqqout au motif que M. Zaqqout avait tent¨¦ de relancer son affaire au lieu de d¨¦montrer des erreurs de la nature de celles cens¨¦es ¨ºtre couvertes par l'article 11(2), et qu'il n'avait pas expliqu¨¦ les erreurs importantes retard dans la demande de correction des erreurs all¨¦gu¨¦es.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision du jugement pr¨¦sent¨¦e par M. Zaqqout. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il s'agissait de la deuxi¨¨me demande de r¨¦vision d¨¦pos¨¦e par M. Zaqqout dans cette affaire, il lui ¨¦tait demand¨¦ de d¨¦montrer des circonstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

M. Hassan a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que sa requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione personae. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu qu'au moment de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection contest¨¦e, le requ¨¦rant avait cess¨¦ ses fonctions depuis plus d'un an et n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel. Il s'agissait d'un candidat externe qui n'avait pas qualit¨¦ pour contester la d¨¦cision de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner pour le nouveau poste d'associ¨¦ ¨¤ la r¨¦installation, dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision n'affectait pas ses anciens...

Mr. Hassan appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel de M. Dorji.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait identifi¨¦ aucun des cinq moyens d'appel ¨¦nonc¨¦s ¨¤ l'article 2(1) du Statut comme constituant la base juridique de l'appel. Comme le TCNU l'a estim¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre, la d¨¦mission forc¨¦e all¨¦gu¨¦e de M. Dorji et sa s¨¦paration ult¨¦rieure de l'Organisation ont eu lieu en mars et avril 2019. La demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Dorji a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e en dehors du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours de plus de deux ans, le 25 juin 2021.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement n¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/030.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¡¯abord r¨¦pondu ¨¤ la demande d¡¯audience du membre du personnel. Le fonctionnaire souhaitait pr¨¦senter au Tribunal des preuves m¨¦dicales prouvant son incapacit¨¦ m¨¦dicale. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ cet argument, soulignant que l'appel ¨¦tait une r¨¦vision du jugement du Tribunal du Tribunal sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s au Tribunal et que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ pr¨¦senter de nouveaux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ les arguments selon lesquels le fonctionnaire pourrait profiter de l'audience pour expliquer diverses politiques ou pour proposer une...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT but which it did not accept.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ ¨¤ la fois l'appel et l'appel ¨¤ travers. En ce qui concerne l'appel crois¨¦ du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral contre la d¨¦cision de la r¨¦ception de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait raison de ne pas rejeter les r¨¦clamations comme irr¨¦alisables, mais d'enqu¨ºter sur leurs m¨¦rites. En ce qui concerne les m¨¦rites, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que les prestations de d¨¦c¨¨s en vertu des r¨¨gles ne sont pas payables aux b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires nomm¨¦s par un membre du personnel, mais aux b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires d¨¦sign¨¦s tels que d¨¦finis par les r¨¨gles du personnel (c'est-¨¤-dire le conjoint survivant ou les enfants ¨¤ charge). L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...