±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-018 (Mahdi)

In reviewing the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment with interest was excessive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the compensation awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, as ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT having stepped into the shoes of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Medical Director. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...