±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

Compensation for stress and anxiety The Applicant produced medical evidence of stress and anxiety. The Tribunal finds that this aspect of the claim is made out. Also, the actions of Mr. Stephen Lieberman, Chief Administrative Officer, described in the Tribunal¡¯s Judgment on liability, were high-handed and grossly disproportionate and the attempt at misleading both the JAB and JDC panels, as well as Counsel for the Respondent and the Tribunal in the present proceedings, constitute aggravating factors which the Tribunal finds heightened the distress experienced by the Applicant. In arriving at a...

The irregularities in the investigative process were egregious and warranted compensation. In addition, during the three years the investigation was delayed, the subject was no longer with the Organization, making it not possible to convene a new investigation.Relief: The Tribunal found the Applicant suffered emotional harm in having to prosecute his complaint for three years, harm to his reputation, and that such harm was demonstrated by the Applicant at trial and observed by the Judge as trier of fact. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the decision of the responsible official to close the case was improper as...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration¡¯s failure to timey conclude its investigation was an act of omission and an implied administrative decision receivable by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The personal crisis of one investigator did not account for the entire three years nor justify the Administration¡¯s failure to take corrective measures to control the delay. The excessive delay breached fairness and the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Further, the Administrations¡¯ failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s multiple reasonable follow up queries spanning three years constituted a breach of duty owed the Applicant...

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...