±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Appellant did not challenge the reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, but appealed on the ground that the administrative policy in place should be changed because she was promoted but her gross income was reduced. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s pay calculations also took into account other deductions and increases such that her net income increased. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the real issue before it was whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made a reversible error in fact or law such that it must allow the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not disagree that, on its face, the calculations of her salary were made...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no basis to disagree with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on merits only became final when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT issued the judgment on compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and remanded it to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for further proceedings.

The staff member appealed on the ground that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to ±¬ÁÏÍø staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded damages from the correct date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076) and Wu (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-042), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific...