±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2021/030.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first explained that this is a case where the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision?maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision?maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal, set aside the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision under appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/179. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, specifically whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT on her application for a suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.