±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬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 held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/108 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/109 jointly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/052 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/062. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had no reason to disagree with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made any errors of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration¡¯s withdrawal of the offer of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...