±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reversible error on part of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration on merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, and remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by failing to recognize that the second contract by which Mr. Castelli¡¯s appointment was extended beyond a year was invalid because it had not been submitted for review by a central review body. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, unless it is fake or fraudulent, a staff member¡¯s appointment contract gives rise to entitlements upon the signing and acceptance by the staff member of their letter of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this is true even where the administration improperly handled the recruitment process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/052) in her request for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute could not be disregarded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT approved judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in Rosca. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

Harassment allegations: People are entitled to their opinions, even unflattering or wrong-headed, about colleagues. It is only when those opinions are conveyed in ways that constitute harassment or abuse that they become problematical in a legal sense. A genuine opinion about a colleague¡¯s competence that happens to be adverse is not susceptible of criticism. While not placing the delays of the applicant in making complaints about the matters to which he has referred on the scales against him, those delays have made it much more difficult for him to prove they occurred quite as he alleges...

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving ¡°by clear and convincing evidence¡± in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that ¡°it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity¡± (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

The applicant, a P-3 level staff member, applied for the P-4 post of Chief of her Unit. She was not selected. It later transpired that the applicant had initially received the highest score, but her supervisors, who participated in the selection, increased the successful candidate¡¯s score. This resulted in the successful candidate being ranked higher than the applicant. The Secretary-General agreed with the finding of the Joint Appeals Board that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated and awarded her compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ salary. The applicant appealed, seeking additional...

The Organization cannot with propriety resort to reliance on particular provisions in its Rules and Regulations which were arguably inconsistent with a representation merely because the Rules and Regulations are referred to as a whole in the Letter of Appointment. Not only was the respondent in breach of its contract with the applicant by deciding arbitrarily and capriciously not to renew his contract (as had been admitted) but it was in breach of the contract by not renewing it in accordance with the undertaking to do so if the applicant¡¯s performance was satisfactory. The applicant¡¯s...

The panel report did not constitute a breach of the applicant¡¯s contractual rights and therefore no compensation is warranted. Such a panel is not a court and while it must be fair, it must be allowed to do its reasonable best to ascertain the facts as it thinks is right. Even though the audit was seriously flawed in significant respects, the decision as to its content is not subject to appeal to the Tribunal. Constructive dismissal occurs when the employer engages in a scheme of action which, in effect makes it so difficult for the employee to continue with his or her work, that the latter...

The statement of the Executive Director is not an administrative decision that can be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. It is not an administrative decision within the meaning of the ruling in Andronov by the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. Indeed, the applicant did not contest the non-renewal of his appointment but a statement by the Executive Director. This statement is a simple opinion, not an administrative decision that could have affected the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. By the time the statement was published, the applicant was already aware of the non-renewal of his...

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the recent jurisprudence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

[±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service...

[Case ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2009/33] The APPC omission to inform the applicant that his supervisor had sent a letter to it concerning his employment and to share its content with him does not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. It thus falls out of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s contract was already taken at that point. Hence, the letter to the APPC was merely internal communication; at the highest, it could be regarded as one step in a complexe procedure. [Case ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2009/40] The...

Outcome: On the balance of probabilities it appears that the applicant was unable to perform his duties at an adequate level and the most significant cause of this situation was not lack of training or assistance, but his own attitude. In fairness to the applicant, more should have been done to help his transition from his outside employment to the requirements of his new employment. In light of the rebuttal process being made available to the applicant, he did not suffer any actual detriment from the lack of an ePAS and had the benefit of a rebuttal process. The application is dismissed in...

Section 8.9 of ST/AI/1999/3 applies only to holders of fixed-term appointments. It is therefore not relevant to the applicant¡¯s case, as he held an indefinite appointment. Regarding the payments due, a clear distinction must be made between the termination indemnities, which are automatically due to the concerned staff member in the event of termination of his/her contract, as provided by the Staff Regulations and Rules, and the compensation package, which, in addition to that which is legally due, includes a certain amount that the administration chooses to give ex gratia; as such, it is...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.