Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, to whom the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

The staff member¡¯s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the staff member¡¯s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56): ¡°¡­ By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant¡¯s personal dignity but also adversely...

The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...

The investigation successfully established that the Applicant engaged in workplace harassment in seven different occasions against the three complainants. By committing workplace harassment, the Applicant breached the highest standards of integrity and engaged in behaviour unbecoming of an international civil servant. As such, her conduct constitutes serious misconduct. However, the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant was found to be too harsh of a penalty lin light of the Administration¡¯s past disciplinary measures on other cases of comparable conduct, as...

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...

Receivability ratione materiae. The Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was not clear on whether he was making allegations of misconduct against his Supervisor, which would need to be dutifully investigated, or citing performance or management issues to be addressed by management. Similarly, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that the matter of lawfulness of the decision to place him on ALWP was ever formally contested by him. Hence, any determination against the decision not to further investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints of harassment against his supervisor or against his...