Íæż½ã½ã

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant¡¯s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant¡¯s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available...

The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel was properly constituted. The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel¡¯s review of the evidence complied with the applicable norms. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s medical condition was not an excuse for his reported poor performance. The Tribunal found that because the Applicant¡¯s report of abuse of authority against his supervisor was only filed after the performance appraisal was completed, it had no bearing on the appraisal.

Even though the relevant legal framework provides no guidance on the procedure to be followed for a transfer decision, the general principle of good faith and fair dealings dictates that a staff member should typically¡ªand at a minimum¡ªbe consulted about such transfer before the final decision is made and priorly be provided with a genuine opportunity to comment thereon --As a matter of good faith and fair dealings, an administrative decision that significantly alters the terms and conditions of a staff member¡¯s employment should be notified to this person in a formal written decision --It is...

The past practice of the Organization in cases involving sexual harassment shows that disciplinary measures have been imposed at the strictest end of the spectrum, namely, separation from service or dismissal in accordance with staff rule 10.2(a), which has been affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in various judgments

As the remedy requested in the application had already been obtained, the Tribunal rejects the application as moot.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that Administration properly calculated the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlements and that the procedure to terminate her appointment for health reasons was properly followed. The Tribunal found that as the Applicant had been ¡°re-employed¡± on the fixed-term contract, staff rule 4.17 prevented the Applicant from claiming that she had completed more than three years of continuous service based on her previous service under the temporary appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlement of three months on full salary and three months on half salary was calculated...

The Tribunal finds that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have not been established. The decision is rescinded in accordance with art. 10(5)(a) of this Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Respondent may opt to pay compensation in lieu of rescission comprising her salary from the date of termination to the date when the Applicant would have retired from service. The Applicant has proved that she suffered moral damages and is awarded of two years¡¯ net base salary as damages for moral harm. The Applicant has also proved that she was over deducted by USD20, 987.91 causing her financial...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable on two grounds: 1) Ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision has no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment, and 2) Because it is premature since at the time of the filing of the application, the relevant response period for the management evaluation was still running.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for the following reasons: the facts had been established to the requisite standard of clear and convincing evidence because the Applicant failed to provide any evidence to contradict the Respondent¡¯s fundamental findings on the objective and subjective elements of the impugned conduct; the established facts qualified as misconduct because the Applicant failed to act with the diligence required of staff applying for education grant entitlements pursuant to ST/AI/2011/4; the sanction was not disproportionate because it was not the most severe sanction for...