Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the factual basis for the JAB¡¯s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice...

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the charge of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and distinguished the case at hand with the two cases cited by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that in the case at hand, the staff member¡¯s actions could have a substantial reputational impact on the Organization and could also adversely affect the relationship between the Organization, Member States and the Host Country. The Tribunal emphasized that the actions of the staff member went beyond the mere internal affairs of the Organization and in fact the fraudulent act was used as an instrument to avoid legal proceedings in the Host Country. As such, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the misconduct...

The staff member appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF job. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an ¡°official act¡± and as such carried with it ¡°the presumption of regularity¡±. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...