±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the ±¬ÁÏÍø or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the ±¬ÁÏÍø, nor was the Organisation aware of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consider the appeal receivable and find that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.