±¬ÁÏÍø

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an analysis of the e-mail and other correspondence between ±¬ÁÏÍøDP and the Appellant indicated that she could not have been led to believe that her home leave request for January 2020 would be granted. She had been advised that a staff member was entitled to home leave only if the staff member¡¯s contract was anticipated to continue for more than six months after the return from home leave, yet Appellant¡¯s continuing engagement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP was unknown, and her current contract end date was June 30, 2020. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDP complied with its obligations to consider and decide the...

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years¡¯ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months¡¯ net...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms. Caucci¡¯s situation differed from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in Tran Nguyen (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/002) and therefore it was erroneous for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to apply such jurisprudence to find that Ms. Caucci had a general service lien with MINUSMA during and after her service with DPO. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the rights of staff members on secondment under the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowance, which was at issue in Tran Nguyen...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...