±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management¡¯s (OHRM) advocacy and information...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-297. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the established facts amounted to serious...