Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the procedures applied to fill the Position sought by the staff member were consistent with the applicable rules. Although the OCHA advertised the Position without any pre-determined restriction to rostered candidates, and received some 151 applications, it ultimately decided to select a rostered candidate, thereby excluding the staff member and many others from consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration was well within its prerogative to do so, as the plain reading of Section 9.5 of Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system) grants...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that his ex-wife¡¯s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender parity had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent¡¯s fees.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration¡¯s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz¡¯s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel ¡°influenced¡± by them.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that Mr. Reiterer had committed the alleged misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Reiterer, namely that he violated ST/SGB/2008/5 concerning count one and ST/AI/2013/4 concerning count two. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that given the nature and the specific facts surrounding Mr. Reiterer¡¯s misconduct, the sanction of demotion by one grade with deferment, for one year, of eligibility for consideration for promotion, was not...