±¬ÁÏÍø

The Secretary-General claimed that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no power to award interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that both ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on 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 held that the Appellant had failed to show how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had no reason to disagree with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law...

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, and to separate her from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to upset the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, affirming ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and failed to explain how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding his claims, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...