Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had no authority to demand a performance guarantee from an NGO Coordinator and that the Applicant¡¯s intention was not to keep a performance guarantee, but rather to obtain a bribe from the NGO Coordinator. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was not convinced of the probative value of the alleged handwritten note which the Applicant claimed was evidence of his intention to request a performance guarantee. On the issue of the Applicant returning the alleged performance guarantee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the real intention of the Applicant and the Senior Programme Assistant was to avoid the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator¡¯s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration¡¯s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant¡¯s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

Regarding the Respondent¡¯s claim that the Applicant cannot challenge the managerial action imposed on him for failing to request a management evaluation, the Tribunal found that the challenged managerial action is a non-disciplinary measure imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process and therefore the Applicant can challenge it, along with disciplinary measures, without requesting a management evaluation under staff rule 11.2(b). Regarding the question of whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established, the Tribunal found that the facts that the...

While DD refused to give testimony to the Tribunal, and not being a United Nations staff member is not obliged to do so, this does not by itself render his interview statement inadmissible or otherwise invalid.; The Tribunal notes that the crux of the present case is whether the comments and proposals of the Applicant were of inappropriate sexual nature, or if instead, they simply concerned the security and safety of the premises or otherwise were nothing but jokes and lighthearted remarks.; As the Tribunal rejected all the Applicant¡¯s submissions regarding the facts not having been...

The Applicant was separated from service for submitting false information in three claims for dental treatment to the Medical Insurance Plan provider, Cigna, for reimbursement. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because during the investigation he was properly informed of the subject and purpose of the interview and afforded sufficient notice. He also had no objections as to the conduct of the interview when asked at the end of his interview. With respect to the claim that the Applicant insisted was, in fact, genuine, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation had not been...