±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant¡¯s signature. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant¡¯s dementia.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant¡¯s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly explained away...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...