±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order, finding that Mr. Okwakol¡¯s complaints about what the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service. The audio-recording needed to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The application fails in its entirety.

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant damages equivalent to three months¡¯ net base salary at the P-3 level. The compensation shall bear interest at the United States of America prime rate with effect from the date this Judgment becomes executable until payment of said compensation. An additional five per cent shall be applied to the United States of America prime rate 60 days from the date the Judgment becomes executable.

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal held that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that any distress caused to the Applicant was a result of the failure to resolve the harassment complaint and therefore an essential link in the requirement to prove moral damages had not been established by the evidence. The Tribunal noted that the finding that there was abuse of power was not based on an administrative act which was part of the Applicant¡¯s application. The Applicant claimed that the delay was part of the harassment meted out by the Administration. However, she never provided evidence to link the...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s procedural fairness rights were respected throughout the investigation and the disciplinary process. The Applicant was interviewed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services and was provided with an audio-recording of the interview. He was provided all supporting documentation, was informed of the allegations against him, his right to seek the assistance of counsel and he was provided the opportunity to comment on the allegations; and his comments were duly considered. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s...