±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB¡¯s decision denying the staff member¡¯s request for restoration of her first participation period. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the amended Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s Regulations only allowed for restoration of a participant¡¯s most recent period of contributory service and that the staff member had requested restoration of a participation period which was not the most recent one.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-018 (Mahdi)

±¬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...

The former staff member appealed and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether he could compel ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF to pay to the Fund its contribution without making the corresponding contribution himself. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as the former staff member¡¯s secondment was with the World Bank, he should have availed himself of the provisions of Article 13 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations relating to the transfer of pension rights and he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that if the former staff member made his own contribution to the Fund, ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF would have been duty-bound to make its corresponding contribution...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF submitted credible evidence that demonstrated that the Cameroon divorce decree was invalid and that the deceased at no time commenced proceedings to dissolve his marriage to his first wife apart from the USA divorce proceedings, which were terminated by his death. In drawing this conclusion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it unnecessary to address the additional reliefs sought by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s decision to award the widow¡¯s benefit to the former staff member¡¯s first wife and denied all reliefs...

In reviewing the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB¡¯s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.

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.