±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr Gehr¡¯s contention that the restructuring, although a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion, had been carried out arbitrarily to marginalize him. In accordance with paragraph 2. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in its report, advised the Executive Director to conduct a functional review of all ±¬ÁÏÍøODC divisions, sections and units, and align them to the reconfirmed prioritized framework for action of the Office, including by reorienting human and financial resources if necessary. The JIU further recommended that the Executive Director take measures to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as ±¬ÁÏÍø staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not shown that the Secretary-General of IMO was required, under the IMO staff regulations and the staff rules, to make available to a federation of international staff associations from different organisations an IMO staff member, who was elected to a high office, for all or part of the term. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reference in the appeal to Staff Rule 108. 1, concerning election, composition, and competencies of the staff committee, did not apply in the case. As to the question of inter-agency cost-sharing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could only establish that this had to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076) and Wu (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-042), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬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 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.

±¬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...

±¬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.

±¬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...

As consistently held by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Time limits prescribed for administrative review (and management evaluation under the new system), which could be waived under the previous system, cannot be waived under article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in article 8.3.

The Tribunal finds that the Salary case was never properly before the Tribunal and is not receivable. It is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary-General to reconsider whether the existence of an injury is attributable to the performance of official duties. In this case, the Secretary-General has refused to exercise that discretion. The Applicant¡¯s claims in as far as they rely on art. 11 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules are therefore not receivable. With respect to all of the Applicant¡¯s other claims including her claim for DSA and air ticket for her daughter¡¯s travel in 2002...

Obligation to take action under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Administration¡¯s obligation to take prompt and concrete action under section 5.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5 is not limited to formal complaints or reports but also extends to ¡°allegations¡± of prohibited conduct. Scope of application of ST/SGB/2008/5: Comments made in the context of a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal could in some circumstances fall under ST/SGB/2008/5. For example, harsh criticism unsupported by examples or the use of offensive language could constitute improper conduct that might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant¡¯s contract ended in eight days from the date of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent not properly ensuring that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended he and his family will suffer from the non-renewal of his contract, and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office¡¯s failures and/or...

The non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was predicated on her harassment complaint of 12 April 2012 against her supervisor. The Tribunal finds and holds that the three elements for a grant of an order for suspension of action have been established in this case.

The Tribunal found that there was not clear and convincing proof that the documents were fake and therefore that count failed. However, as regards the other charges, the Applicant had not denied the violations, rather he had indicated that his superior, the Country Representative, was to blame for giving instructions to the Applicant which were in breach of the rules. The Tribunal considered that the responsibility of an Operations Manager when dealing, in particular, with procurement matters, was such that he could not rely on instructions given from above. Therefore, his liability in respect...