Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the vacancy had been advertised for only ten days which violated the mandatory requirement of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Personnel Directive, and this violation had been corrected by cancelling the recruitment process and constituting another one that met the requirement of the minimum posting period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not identified the alleged defects of the impugned Judgment but rather had reargued his case and, therefore, had not discharged his burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the impugned Judgment had been in error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its calculation of the reduction of the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit, the Pension Fund had determined the rate of the overall cost-of-living adjustment due to benefits in accordance with the movement in the US consumer price index since the date of the last adjustment to be 6.4 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Fund had then prorated the overall adjustment rate in proportion to the length of time the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit had been in payment and had determined that the inflationary adjustment due to him was 7/12 of 6.4 per cent, equal to 3.7 per cent...

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 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even though the Commissioner-General had mistakenly reimbursed the fine to Mr. El-Haj after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, since the fine was subsequently reimposed, the appeal was not moot.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order to find that a staff member¡¯s conduct was ¡°serious misconduct¡± so as to warrant a more serious sanction, the Commissioner-General had to provide reasons for this determination. In this case, the Commissioner-General provided no reasons, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that reasons were not necessary because it was manifestly...

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 held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ experience was used to disadvantage her. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also...

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 estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait agi correctement en proc¨¦dant ¨¤ un contr?le juridictionnel de l'affaire.

Il a conclu que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement ¨¦valu¨¦ la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ des t¨¦moins qui avaient t¨¦moign¨¦ devant lui et s'¨¦tait fond¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre sur le t¨¦moignage cr¨¦dible de Mme V, qui n'avait aucun motif de mentir, pour conclure qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'ancien membre du personnel l'avait harcel¨¦e sexuellement en tenant des propos ¨¤ caract¨¨re sexuel en mai et d¨¦cembre 2020. Si le t¨¦moignage de Mme V aurait ¨¦t¨¦ suffisant en soi dans ce contexte, le...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que les conclusions du TDPI reposaient sur des preuves cr¨¦dibles lorsqu'il a d¨¦termin¨¦ que le fils de la fonctionnaire avait contract¨¦ la Covid-19, qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ trait¨¦ sous la supervision de son m¨¦decin traitant et que le paiement avait ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦ sur la base des factures de ce dernier refl¨¦tant les soins qu'il avait prodigu¨¦s.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des t¨¦moignages des t¨¦moins de la fonctionnaire, y compris elle-m¨ºme et le professionnel de sant¨¦ qui avait trait¨¦ son fils, le TDPI n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Administration n'avait pas ¨¦tabli la...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, bien que l'ancien membre du personnel n'ait re?u le rapport d'enqu¨ºte complet qu'apr¨¨s la fin de la proc¨¦dure disciplinaire, il n'y avait pas eu violation des r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re, car la lettre lui donnant la possibilit¨¦ de r¨¦pondre ¨¦tait d¨¦taill¨¦e et il avait re?u le rapport d'enqu¨ºte complet au d¨¦but de la proc¨¦dure devant le Tribunal du contentieux.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux avait correctement entendu les t¨¦moignages en direct de nombreux t¨¦moins, qui avaient tous ¨¦t¨¦ soumis ¨¤ un contre-interrogatoire, et avait admis certaines d¨¦clarations...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings had been based on credible evidence when it determined that the staff member¡¯s son had contracted Covid-19; he had been treated under the supervision of her primary medical care provider; and payment had been made based on invoices from that provider reflecting the care he had provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in light of the testimony of the staff member¡¯s witnesses, including herself and the medical professional who had treated her son, it had not been erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that the Administration had failed to establish the medical...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute...