Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

The undisputed facts are unambiguous and leave little room for different interpretations. An apology does not invalidate or undo the misconduct. The fact that the Applicant was not made aware of the negative impact of her practice has no relevance for the factual determination. As such, the Administration has established the facts underlying the disciplinary measure in question by preponderance of evidence.

The Applicant using expletives towards her subordinates and widely addressing her colleagues by nicknames in the workplace were compounded by her ignoring personal and professional...

Mr. Nastase appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

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...

The record demonstrated that the Applicant refused to complete her supervisees¡¯ performance evaluation and delayed the contract extension process. The Applicant refused to perform key managerial functions.

While it may be true that she was not given an opportunity to explain her actions, the remedies under section 10.1 ST/AI/2010/5 are only aimed at rectifying performance short comings and are not punitive. It was therefore not necessary to conduct some form of investigation in which a staff member would be required to explain her actions.

While the Applicant had a duty and a right to...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in acts affecting two staff members, namely V01 and V02. The Tribunal thus held that the facts on which the sanction was based were clearly established.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards V01 and V02 was (i) unwelcome, (ii) of a sexual nature, and (iii) they might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation. Further, his conduct interfered with their work and/or created for them an intimidating, hostile...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...