Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant¡¯s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant¡¯s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had admitted his wrongdoing during his interview by the investigator. Accordingly, the Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed fraud, a prohibited conduct.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud. Therefore, his actions amounted to serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s argument that his due process rights were violated because...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP) on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

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 decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant¡¯s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration¡¯s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

The Respondent discharged the evidentiary burden of minimal showing that the decisions regarding abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post leading to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and separation were lawful. The witnesses were credible, their evidence was cogent, reliable, consistent and corroborative. It was not contradicted in any meaningful manner. After examining the Applicant¡¯s and his witnesses¡¯ testimonies, the Tribunal was not convinced that the Applicant has made a clear and convincing case to rebut the presumption that the abolition of his post leading to the non-renewal of his...

The Tribunal recalled that the regulatory framework on termination for facts anterior does not limit it to cases where there has been a proven prior factual finding of misconduct or a conviction of crime. What is required is that there must be a fact anterior that detracts from the suitability of the prospective recruit due to concerns of efficiency, competence, and integrity. The fact must be of so serious a nature that it would have precluded the staff member¡¯s appointment if it had been disclosed to the Organization during the recruitment process.

In the instant case, the Tribunal...