Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement conclu que le retard de 30 mois pris par l'ABCC dans le traitement de la demande d'indemnisation ¨¦tait excessif. Il a estim¨¦ qu'un d¨¦lai raisonnable pour prendre une d¨¦cision dans cette affaire n'aurait pas d? d¨¦passer 24 semaines. Il a estim¨¦ que le retard suppl¨¦mentaire de 24 mois et 13 jours, sans explication ad¨¦quate, ¨¦tait ill¨¦gal et violait l'obligation de l'Administration de traiter les personnes ¨¤ charge du fonctionnaire d¨¦c¨¦d¨¦ de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et raisonnable.

En ce qui concerne l'indemnisation accord¨¦e, le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que la lettre du membre du personnel concernant sa retraite anticip¨¦e devait ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une lettre de d¨¦mission. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que quelques mois plus tard, elle avait envoy¨¦ une autre lettre ¨¤ l'Administration demandant le retrait de sa d¨¦mission. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TFP n'avait pas commis d'erreur de droit en identifiant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision de ne pas accepter le retrait de la d¨¦mission de la fonctionnaire, et que l'approche du TFP ne lui avait pas caus¨¦ de pr¨¦judice puisqu'il avait pu examiner tous ses arguments.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a estim¨¦ que le TFP avait correctement analys¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s, en motivant de mani¨¨re d¨¦taill¨¦e l'acceptation ou le rejet du t¨¦moignage de chaque t¨¦moin et, surtout, en tenant compte de l'aveu par le fonctionnaire de nombreux faits essentiels. Il s'agissait notamment de reconna?tre : l'existence de tensions entre lui-m¨ºme et les membres du personnel international et national ; qu'il ¨¦tait probablement trop exigeant en tant que sup¨¦rieur hi¨¦rarchique ; qu'il avait ¨¦lev¨¦ la voix au travail ; qu'il avait fait r¨¦f¨¦rence aux...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reject it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the ABCC¡¯s 30-month delay in processing the claim for compensation was excessive. It found that a reasonable delay for decision-making in this claim would have been no more than 24 weeks. It held that the additional delay of 24 months and 13 days, without adequate explanation, was unlawful and violated the Administration¡¯s duty to treat the dependents of the deceased staff member fairly and reasonably.

With respect to the compensation awarded, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of six months¡¯ net base salary for moral harm. However, the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness¡¯s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member¡¯s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire souffrait d'un probl¨¨me m¨¦dical n¨¦cessitant des soins qui avait une incidence sur sa capacit¨¦ ¨¤ reprendre le travail, qu'il avait consenti ¨¤ l'examen m¨¦dical ind¨¦pendant et qu'il n'avait pas contest¨¦ ces dossiers devant le TDPI ni en appel.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si la d¨¦cision ST/AI/2019/1 ¨¦tait applicable aux fonctionnaires du HCR ou consid¨¦r¨¦e comme un mod¨¨le de pratique ¨¦quitable, elle n'aurait pas rendu l'examen m¨¦dical ind¨¦pendant irr¨¦gulier.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n'a trouv¨¦ aucun motif pour infirmer la d¨¦cision de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon laquelle il n'y avait aucune preuve de...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que les ordonnances contest¨¦es rejetant les demandes d'anonymat du fonctionnaire avaient ¨¦t¨¦ rendues moins d'un mois apr¨¨s que le TFP ait fait droit ¨¤ sa demande d'anonymat dans une autre affaire.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les ordonnances contest¨¦es n'¨¦taient pas isol¨¦es et que l'interaction de toutes ces proc¨¦dures rendait la situation exceptionnelle. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fait de lui refuser l'anonymat pour ses deux demandes uniquement irait ¨¤ l'encontre de l'objectif de l'anonymat et que, dans les circonstances particuli¨¨res de cette proc¨¦dure, cette incoh¨¦rence portait atteinte ¨¤...