±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant¡¯s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the present case, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the present case, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as ±¬ÁÏÍø staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/±¬ÁÏÍøAT/114), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of...