Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Womens¡¯ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected appellant¡¯s contention that because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s complaints about lack of due process were without merit. The Applicant did not establish that the Respondent failed to afford him due process in the investigation and disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal recalled that the Applicant was sanctioned for: (i) Misleading the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s Global Fleet Management (¡°GFM¡±) regarding the extent of the damage to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s vehicle;...

There is no evidence of collusion or bias against the Applicant. On the contrary, several congruent testimonies corroborated the complainants¡¯ statements and confirmed the allegations of bullying and harassment against the Applicant. The Applicant failed to substantiate his arguments against the complaint and the complainants. The facts are established by a preponderance of evidence and constitute misconduct.
Bearing in mind the nature of the facts attributed to the Applicant, it is not unreasonable that he be obliged to attend mandatory training to improve his managerial and communication¡¯s...

The Tribunal found that the sanction in this case bore no rational connection or suitable relationship to the evidence on the record and the purpose of progressive or corrective discipline. The Applicant¡¯s messages were mainly reactionary, and he showed great pateince in not responding to the complainant's tone. The Applicant was provoked. The Applicant identified no special circumstances which would warrant the anonymization of this matter, apart from potential personal embarrassment and discomfort, which were not sufficient grounds to grant anonymity.

The Applicant was sanctioned for engaging in two types of misconduct: (i) sexually exploiting V01, and (ii) engaging in a misrepresentation to the Organization and a misappropriation of assets from the Organization regarding Family Emergency Leave from 22 until 27 July 2019. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; regarding the first sanction of sexually exploiting V01, the Tribunal concluded that based on the finding that the Applicant was aware of V01¡¯s vulnerability, the evidence that he continued to have sexual intercourse with her even at times when she had...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s procedural fairness rights were respected throughout the investigation and the disciplinary process. The Applicant was interviewed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services and was provided with an audio-recording of the interview. He was provided all supporting documentation, was informed of the allegations against him, his right to seek the assistance of counsel and he was provided the opportunity to comment on the allegations; and his comments were duly considered. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s...