Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ qu'au moment des ¨¦lections, il n'y avait aucune loi qui a emp¨ºch¨¦ les membres du personnel d'¨ºtre ¨¦lus au TNUSPC une fois qu'ils ont rencontr¨¦ les conditions d'¨¦lection, ce qu'ils ont fait. Unat a jug¨¦ que les deux membres du personnel ¨¦taient des membres d?ment ¨¦lus de la TNUSPC et qu'en cons¨¦quence directe de leur ¨¦lection, ils avaient les m¨ºmes droits et privil¨¨ges que les autres membres ¨¦lus, et qui ne pouvaient pas ¨ºtre limit¨¦s ou refus¨¦s. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a accord¨¦ les appels et a ordonn¨¦ que les membres du personnel aient acc¨¨s ¨¤ tous les documents pertinents de la Commission de...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune disposition dans le r¨¨glement ou les r¨¨gles du personnel indiquant que l'autorit¨¦ discr¨¦tionnaire du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de d¨¦livrer une r¨¦primande ¨¦crite en tant que mesure non disciplinaire conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 10.2 (b) (i) (b) (i) ¨¦tait fond¨¦e sur et limit¨¦ aux existence d'un contrat de travail continu. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que pour tenir autrement, il ne rendrait pas les normes de conduite sans fondement qui survivent au service actif. En outre, Unat a jug¨¦ que, dans une perspective pratique, il entraverait la capacit¨¦ et le pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire du...

Unat a soutenu que Undt avait commis une erreur en constatant que l'exigence erron¨¦e pour une commande parfaite de l'anglais a vici¨¦ l'ensemble du processus de recrutement, notant qu'il s'agissait d'une erreur typographique et des mesures correctives ont ¨¦t¨¦ prises en effectuant un examen manuel du profil d'histoire personnelle de chaque candidat. Unat a soutenu que Undt avait commis une erreur dans sa conclusion que le processus de s¨¦lection ¨¦tait ill¨¦gal et manquait de transparence. Unat a jug¨¦ que la n¨¦cessit¨¦ de la d¨¦termination factuelle de toutes les preuves li¨¦es ¨¤ la liste, au...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de s¨¦parer le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait arbitraire, discriminatoire, constituait un abus de pouvoir et ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'¨¦tait pas tenu de fixer un montant d'indemnisation compensatoire, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que la d¨¦cision concernait un transfert lat¨¦ral, et non une nomination, une promotion ou un licenciement. Le TANU a confirm¨¦ la conclusion de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon laquelle le t¨¦moignage de Mme Koduru n'¨¦tait pas suffisamment convaincant pour servir de base ¨¤ l'octroi de dommages moraux. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande de d¨¦pens de Mme Koduru. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a rejet¨¦...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel de M. Amarah et de l'appel crois¨¦ du commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA contre le jugement n ¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA / DT / 2018/041 et le jugement n ¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA / DT / 2018/004. Unat a estim¨¦ que les probl¨¨mes relatifs au processus de s¨¦lection des OSC et ¨¤ l'affirmation selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait renonc¨¦ ¨¤ l'¨¦tat de la s¨¦paration de 18 mois apr¨¨s que les v¨¦hicules ¨¦lectriques n'¨¦taient pas correctement avant lui, car ils n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦s avant Unrwa dt et n'¨¦taient donc pas ¨¤ recevoir. Notant que M. Amarah avait viol¨¦ l'interdiction de l'emploi, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas produit suffisamment de preuves pour ¨¦tayer ses all¨¦gations de parti pris, de discrimination et / ou de motifs inappropri¨¦s. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il avait examin¨¦ tous les motifs soulev¨¦s dans l'appel et a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve que l'administration n'agissait pas de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable, de mani¨¨re justice et de mani¨¨re transparente tout au long du processus de restructuration. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait ¨¦tabli aucune erreur de droit ou de fait pour ¨¦tayer son cas pour une renversement du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no provision in the Staff Regulations or Rules stating that the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority to issue a written reprimand as a non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2(b) (i) was predicated upon and limited to the existence of an ongoing employment contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to hold otherwise would render baseless those standards of conduct that survive active service. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, from a practical perspective, it would stymie the Secretary-General¡¯s ability and discretionary authority to properly manage investigations and...