Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when the new system was created, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reversible error on part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB¡¯s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judges. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s request that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...