±¬ÁÏÍø

Ms. Specker appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate. The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms. Specker¡¯s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases. The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and upheld...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. ±¬ÁÏÍøDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant¡¯s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± and the 2019-2020 ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-±¬ÁÏÍø staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified ±¬ÁÏÍø staff members, to whom the...