Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The act of cheating in which the Applicant engaged did not necessitate the use of her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP email address. Therefore, the use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP email address is a distinct and separate from assisting AA in cheating. Considering that the Applicant was a senior staff member, that she had a personal interest in the outcome of the tests in that the person she assisted was her partner, and that the assistance that she provided was significant as she provided AA with full written answers to the test questions, which he then almost completely copied and submitted, the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the Applicant¡¯s admission and testimonies of other witnesses during the investigation and at the hearing, it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant physically assaulted another staff member on 20 March 2016. On whether the facts amounted to misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s action violated staff rule 1.2(g) and constituted workplace harassment, which is prohibited by staff rule 1.2(f). Accordingly, the Applicant¡¯s action amounted to misconduct. With regard to whether the sanction was proportionate to the...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. With regard to ratione temporis, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 31 May 2019. She then ought to have requested management evaluation by 30 July 2019. She however, submitted her request on 30 December 2019, five months late, and outside the 60-day period. The Tribunal thus held that her request for management evaluation was time-barred and therefore, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not competent to...

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that at the earliest, the deadline to request management evaluation started to run on 22 August 2019 and expired on 21 October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s 18 October 2019 request for management evaluation was timely and that her application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that the decision to pay the Applicant¡¯s repatriation grant at the single rate was in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy as well as Annex IV to the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not contest the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment, and held that the application was admissible as the Applicant properly requested management evaluation of the decision related to her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Recruitment and Selection Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was given full consideration in the selection process, and that her experience in the United Nations as well as her status as a staff member of the RCO in Turkey was properly recorded in the corporate panel...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...