Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Commen?ant par la pr¨¦somption que les actes officiels sont r¨¦guli¨¨rement accomplis, Unat a convenu que l'administration a agi conform¨¦ment aux r¨¨glements et aux r¨¨gles du personnel lorsqu'il a invit¨¦ trois candidats ¨¤ la liste pour un entretien informel et a fait une s¨¦lection finale de la liste. ?tant donn¨¦ que la pr¨¦somption de r¨¦gularit¨¦ a ¨¦t¨¦ satisfaite, la charge de la preuve s'est d¨¦plac¨¦e sur le membre du personnel qui doit d¨¦montrer qu'il n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ pris en consid¨¦ration ¨¦quitable et ad¨¦quate. Ceci, le membre du personnel n'a pas fait. Unat a ¨¦galement convenu avec l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT que le...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT a reconnu que la mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e de la s¨¦paration du service sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement est l'une des mesures disciplinaires les plus graves que l'agence puisse imposer ¨¤ un membre du personnel. N¨¦anmoins, il a d¨¦cid¨¦ que, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ l¡¯inconduite de l¡¯appelant dans l¡¯engagement des ch?timents corporels d¡¯un enfant handicap¨¦ et tr¨¨s vuln¨¦rable, et la politique claire de la tol¨¦rance z¨¦ro de l¡¯agence envers les ch?timents corporels, la mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯appelant ne semblait ni absurde ni arbitraire; Il n'y avait pas non plus de preuve que la mesure...

Undt a commis une erreur en d¨¦cidant que M. Adriantseheno avait ¨¦t¨¦ inculp¨¦ uniquement de harc¨¨lement sexuel, que son comportement envers VO1 et VO2 ne constituait pas de harc¨¨lement sexuel et que ses droits ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re ont ¨¦t¨¦ viol¨¦s.

Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas manqu¨¦ d'exercer correctement sa juridiction en refusant de convoquer une deuxi¨¨me discussion sur la gestion des cas. Unat a jug¨¦ que, concernant la question de savoir si Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'a pas abord¨¦ les arguments factuels de l'appelant contestant la l¨¦galit¨¦ de l'abolition de son poste, l'appel ¨¦tait sans m¨¦rite; L'appelante n'a fait que r¨¦¨¦quilibre son cas et n'a pas ¨¦tabli que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a commis une erreur en fait ou en droit sur cette question. Unat a toutefois d¨¦tenu que Undt a commis une erreur en d¨¦cidant que l'appelant n'avait pas r¨¦fut¨¦ la pr¨¦somption que la...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ les deux appels par le secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral et par M. Hussein Haidar. Unat a refus¨¦ la demande d'audience orale. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en concluant que les faits, sur lesquels la mesure disciplinaire ¨¦taient fond¨¦es, avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablies par des preuves claires et convaincantes. Unat a jug¨¦ que Undt a conclu correctement que les faits ¨¦tablis ¨¦quivalaient l¨¦galement ¨¤ une mauvaise conduite. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur dans la proc¨¦dure telle que d'affecter la d¨¦cision de l'affaire lors de l'examen de l'une des d¨¦clarations. Unat n'a trouv¨¦...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made several findings on the appeal. First, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with...

Starting with the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the Administration acted in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Rules when it invited three roster candidates for an informal interview and made a final selection from the roster. Given the presumption of regularity was satisfied, the burden of proof shifted on the staff member who must demonstrate that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. This, the staff member failed to do. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member can only challenge a specific administrative decision, and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that Mr. Adriantseheno had been charged solely with sexual harassment, that his behavior towards Vo1 and Vo2 did not constitute sexual harassment, and that his due process rights were violated.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective or that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

As a first preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its RoP did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Gido¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected Mr Gido¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr...