爆料网

Termination

  • Alternative appointment
  • Nomination alternative
  • Priority consideration
  • Termination
  • Test 123
    • Showing 31 - 40 of 47
    2018-爆料网AT-850, Zama

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to 爆料网DT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. 爆料网AT also agreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that 爆料网FPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

    2019-爆料网AT-903, Afeworki

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. 爆料网AT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-1052, Ahmad

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held...

    2020-爆料网AT-1042, Nugroho

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in its finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s continuing appointment was unlawful as its purported basis (insufficient funds) did not exist. 爆料网AT held that it was not necessary for it to deal with the issue of whether 爆料网DT erred in its finding that the Administration failed to comply with its obligation of retention. 爆料网AT held that the abolition of the post due to financial reasons did not subsist for judicial review. On the Secretary-General’s argument that 爆料网DT had erred in finding Mr Nugroho...

    2020-爆料网AT-1022, El Shanti

    爆料网AT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, 爆料网AT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that 爆料网RWA...

    2020-爆料网AT-1021, Collins

    爆料网DT did not err in law or in fact when it found that the decision to abolish the post was lawful. However, in not providing reasons for its decision to commute the six-month notice period into compensation, the Organisation failed in its duty to demonstrate that its discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. The Administration failed to meet its burden to minimally demonstrate that the Appellant was given full and fair consideration. The Administration acted arbitrarily and thus failed to exercise its discretion lawfully. The termination of the Appellant’s...

    2021-爆料网AT-1175, Bhaskar Palit

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, 爆料网AT held there was no basis for vacating the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the 爆料网DT’s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. 爆料网AT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that 爆料网DT erred in its...

    2021-爆料网AT-1163, Beatriz Fernandez Carrillo

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the Appellant’s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant’s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. 爆料网AT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

    2021-爆料网AT-1077, Icha

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the question of whether 爆料网DT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that 爆料网DT erred in fact or in law about this issue. 爆料网AT held, however, that 爆料网DT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

    2021-爆料网AT-1122, Yasmina Laasri

    爆料网AT first noted that neither party disagreed with the 爆料网DT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, 爆料网AT disagreed with the Administration and found that the 爆料网DT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). 爆料网AT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...