±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, in light of which ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judge, namely that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/106 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/192. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was filed on time and was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the parties agreed to and identified the facts in their Joint Statement, it was not open to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to conduct its own evaluation and then to substitute its view for that of the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the misconduct was of a grave and serious nature and in those circumstances, the sanction of separation was reasonable and not disproportionate and/or arbitrary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it reversed the Secretary-General¡¯s decision to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT set out the correct legal framework, but thereafter erroneously reviewed the evidence and interfered with the administrative discretion, since ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had established the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in its evaluation of the evidence and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had established the existence of the facts warranting disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedure and the subsequent decision were lawful and there was no basis to rescind the termination or to award any...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in concluding that the imposed disciplinary sanction was disproportionate and consequently substituting it for a lesser one. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that serious misconduct was established and the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity was proportionate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the misconduct put public health at risk as the food was distributed with altered expiration dates to hide the fact of its expiration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction was neither absurd nor disproportionate and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...