±¬ÁÏÍø

The Secretary-General appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between ±¬ÁÏÍøDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

±¬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...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...