±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

When the Applicant filled his PT8 form, he claimed daily subsistence allowance (DSA) for the period he would spend in Geneva for training purposes when he was fully aware that he was proceeding there to meet with an NGO or to have consultations with colleagues at HQ. As the purpose of his travel had changed he used funds earmarked for training for a different purpose without obtaining prior written authorisation. There was a note on his PT8 form that during January, the Applicant was on leave but this was not sufficient to absolve him. He received DSA for the period he was away from the...

Allegations of domestic violence and conflicts over child custody, maintenance or paternity are properly matters for a criminal court and family court to entertain. The Organization has no business using its administrative procedures to involve itself in a personal dispute when other appropriate legal channels were available to the parties to sort out their rights and responsibilities. The unilateral extension of the Applicant¡¯s temporary assignment to Addis Ababa beyond the agreed one month amounted to bias, abuse of authority and a breach of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights.The Applicant...