The 爆料网AT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The 爆料网AT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.
The 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT concluded that the Secretary-General’s calculation of two years’ net base salary was appropriate.
The 爆料网AT further held that the deductions made for...
The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the 爆料网DT 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 爆料网AT nevertheless noted that the staff member’s application filed with the 爆料网DT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the 爆料网AT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a 爆料网DT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.
The 爆料网AT found that the staff member sought to...
The 爆料网AT rejected Mr. Salon’s argument that the prior 爆料网AT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The 爆料网AT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the 爆料网AT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the 爆料网AT Statute’s provisions for an application for interpretation.
The 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT Judgment was clear...
The 爆料网AT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.
The 爆料网AT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and the application was denied.
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA 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 爆料网RWA 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 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency’s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10.As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.
The 爆料网AT further...
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.
It found that the 爆料网DT 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 爆料网AT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...
The 爆料网AT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member’s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the 爆料网DT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.
The 爆料网AT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The 爆料网AT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The 爆料网AT...
It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-爆料网AT-335).
The Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
