爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 681 - 690 of 1669
2012-爆料网AT-270, Marshall

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT 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. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. 爆料网AT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by 爆料网DT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had applied an unduly restrictive...

2012-爆料网AT-269, Hamad

爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT was correct in applying Former 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that 爆料网RWA DT had not erred in this regard. 爆料网AT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 爆料网RWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

2012-爆料网AT-268, Bangoura

爆料网AT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. 爆料网AT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. 爆料网AT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

2012-爆料网AT-261, Badawi

爆料网AT addressed the staff member’s appeal seeking reversal of the 爆料网RWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. 爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency’s extension of the Appellant’s...

2012-爆料网AT-253, Gehr

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in concluding that the Administration’s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant’s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration’s subsequent change of approach. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly determined that the Appellant’s claims in this regard had become moot. 爆料网AT held that, in rendering the Appellant’s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, 爆料网DT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

2012-爆料网AT-266, Rees

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. 爆料网AT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member’s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member’s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. 爆料网AT held that, in Ms Rees’ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. 爆料网AT held...

2012-爆料网AT-267, Achkar

爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

2012-爆料网AT-262, Gordon

Regarding the lateral moves, 爆料网AT held that the fact, that the selected candidate’s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of “lateral move” in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate’s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, 爆料网AT held that the evidence before 爆料网DT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10...

2012-爆料网AT-263, Larkin

爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2011/179. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

2012-爆料网AT-265, Ljungdell

Regarding the allegations that 爆料网DT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, 爆料网AT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant’s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...