Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had provided no rule or precedent based contextual explanation to support his position. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had not provided any rational explanation for depriving the Applicant of the entitlements to increments afforded under GS Salary Scale 120b to those similarly circumstanced. Accordingly, the Tribunal:

a. Decided to rescind the contested decision;

b. Directed that the Applicant be recognised as having been in continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat from 3 May 1994 and, effective 22 February 2022, she...

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a ¡°jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact¡± of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...

The Tribunal found no procedural flaws in the procedure adopted to investigate and impose the disciplinary action taken.

The Tribunal determined that the application should be denied since the misconduct committed by the Applicant was very serious and there were no mitigating factors. The Applicant refused to supply relevant information even though she knew that it was known that she had a sister working in the Organization.

The disciplinary measure imposed was therefore proportionate and fairly imposed, with full opportunity to respond to questions asked and clarify answers, if necessary.