±¬ÁÏÍø

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found "questionable" the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the investigation reports were not thorough or procedurally fair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the manner in which the inquiry was conducted was adequate for the purposes of a preliminary assessment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in view of the fact that Ms. Rehman was not given or entitled to the reports, the impugned order of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT essentially required the OIAI to provide a written, reasoned decision setting out the findings and reasons for its assessment that the complaints should not be referred to an investigation. The...

Ms. Coleman appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings on compensation for moral...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva¡¯s terms and conditions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first explained that under the new reimbursement regime, an expense would be recoverable if: (i) it¡¯s for tuition; (ii) it is paid directly to the school; and (iii) it is certified by the school as being necessary for attendance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim that because another ±¬ÁÏÍø entity would apply a rule more favorably to his case, that entity¡¯s interpretation should trump over the one given by the organization where he actually works. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration¡¯s approach that if an item in a category of fees was inadmissible, then the Administration...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not issued a judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were unaware of various ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also reasoned prior ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgments do not...

The Tribunal found that the Administration properly qualified the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards the Complainants as sexual harassment, but found the sanction disproportionate to the offence. The Tribunal is of the view that, while in the assessment of accusations of harassment the test focuses on the conduct itself - and requires an objective examination as to whether it could be expected or perceived to cause offence or humiliation to a reasonable person, being not necessary instead to establish that the alleged offender was ill-intended (see Belkahbbaz ±¬ÁÏÍøAT-2018-873, para. 76) -, the lack of...

The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the Applicant commented adversely on V01¡¯s clothing during his visit to the National Committee. However, while acknowledging that the comments may have been out of line given that he had no supervisory role over the staff in the National Committee, the Tribunal does not find that evidence supports that this conduct had a sexual component. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant compared V01¡¯s age to his son while stating that he tried to avoid speaking to older women. The Tribunal is also satisfied...

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that¡ªin the hypothesis that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018¡ªit would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant¡¯s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

The Tribunal held that staff members¡¯ obligations under staff regulations 1.2(a), (b) and (f) are not limited to the work environment but also apply in a certain way to their private lives. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted physical conduct of a sexual nature that might reasonably be excepted or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to the complainant. There was no doubt that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. The Tribunal found no grounds to review the level of the sanction imposed on the Applicant.

Irregularities in connection with a process, including alleged delay in reaching a final decision, may only be challenged in the context of an application contesting the conclusion of an entire process. Indeed, this final administrative decision, which concludes the compounded administrative process in administering a staff member¡¯s complaint, is the only challengeable one and absorbs all the previous preliminary steps. The Tribunal noted from the record that the investigation of the Applicant¡¯s FRO¡¯s complaint had been completed and OHR had provided its assessment on the case. It further...

DSA is provided for official trips only, and these must be formally approved prior to travel. The decision to refuse DSA for the days the Applicant was in Cairo is therefore lawful, as that part of his presence in Cairo was clearly for personal purposes.

The Tribunal found that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarized, was implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person and the right to challenge this decision, founding the claim on specific grounds related to the Administration¡¯s assessment of the facts. The jrusiprudence acknowleges the right of the complainant to have a summary of the report is recognized too, and it is confirmed that only under exceptional circumstances...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was ¡°clear and unambiguous¡± enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant¡¯s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

The impugned ¡°decision¡± carried no ¡°direct legal consequences¡± given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.

The Tribunal concluded that based on the totality of evidentiary material, the electronic fuel monitoring system (EFMS) transaction records, Vivo Energy transaction logs, and the identification by witnesses heard in the investigation, it was satisfied that the Applicant¡¯s participation in the fraudulent scheme had been shown by clear and convincing evidence. On the due process prong, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant faulted the conduct of the investigation on the ground that the investigators favoured inculpatory evidence and ignored potential exculpatory factors. The Tribunal observed...