Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB Standing Committee. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s first ground of appeal had no merit, noting that the Appellant had prior notice of her separation and could have exercised her right to restore her participation prior to the time of her separation in accordance with Section F. 1 of the Pension Fund¡¯s Administrative Rules, which she failed to do. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee had no discretion to make an exception in this case and the Standing Committee¡¯s decision not to restore the Appellant¡¯s prior...