Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to end...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the factors required to be considered in the disciplinary context. This included : the past practice of the Organization in comparable matters, the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was accidental, careless, reckless, or deliberate; whether the staff member followed procedures and was self-aware of the conduct; whether, given the staff member¡¯s experience, the misconduct was minor, substantive, or severe; the risk of damage to the Organization and staff; as well as any mitigating factors.

The...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal held that, based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed. The Tribunal found the testimony of the victim to be credible and established that the Applicant had indeed sexually harassed the victim. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and which did constitute serious misconduct...

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator¡¯s finding of ¡°prior conduct¡± were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant¡¯s persistency...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found the testimony of each of the Respondent¡¯s witnesses to be credible and the testimony of the Applicant to be not worthy of belief. Based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment, harassment, and abuse of...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent¡¯s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...