±¬ÁÏÍø

Whether the Administration provided a valid and fair reason for the contested decision In determining whether a valid and fair reason exists to terminate the Applicant¡¯s appointment for unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will examine in turn the following issues: i. Whether the Applicant in fact failed to meet the performance standards; ii. Whether he was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required standards; iii. Whether he was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards; and iv. Whether termination of appointment is an appropriate action for...

±¬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 held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was well within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no merit in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, at the time ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF sought to make the correction from termination to non-renewal, the staff member was already separated from service, and it was, therefore, too late to reverse the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s separation from service was termination on grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance and that the Administration¡¯s decision to reverse the decision was untimely and ineffective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to reverse ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had been deprived of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...