Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hunt, in coordination with colleagues, was covertly communicating with a news media reporter on the Investment Fund transaction, the approval process, and the former Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG)¡¯s role and had thereby leaked information to the reporter.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Hunt failed to prove that his action of reporting possible misconduct within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to outside sources was a protected activity under the Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin on protection against retaliation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that two periods of delay in addressing the former staff member¡¯s complaints was not evidence of bias against her. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that delay alone is not indicative of bias.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the former staff member¡¯s claims related to a certain press release had been decided by prior Tribunal judgments and could not be relitigated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly confirmed that the establishment of the fact-finding Panel, its process of fact-finding and reporting, and its interactions with the former staff member as...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Administration had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ammar made the Facebook post because the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) inappropriately discounted the possibility that Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account had been hacked. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration met its burden of establishing that it was highly probable that Mr. Ammar posted the Comment and thus publicly expressed support for an honour killing. The Administration produced uncontradicted evidence that the comment came from Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account and he...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in an Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness¡¯s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member¡¯s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that it was established that the former staff member diverted funds contributed to the United Nations Staff Union to support Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Staff Day to the United Nations Athletic Club (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAC). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed that even if the former staff member did not obtain personal gain, she misused her office for the private gain of a third party, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAC, which constituted misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that irrespective of what the former staff member¡¯s work environment was like, it cannot justify misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that any form of dishonest...