Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant¡¯s attempt to hug V01 did not on its own qualify as an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favour or verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature or any other behaviour of a sexual nature. The Applicant¡¯s asking for V01¡¯s room number on multiple occasions did not constitute sexual harassment. The facts did not establish sexual harassment as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 and as interpreted in various jurisprudence. The Respondent¡¯s investigations were skewed toward finding a case for sexual harassment regardless of the inadequacy of evidence to substantiate the...

The Applicant, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member in between assignments (¡°SIBA¡±), was placed on SLWOP after having exhausted a nine-month period on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The Tribunal reviewed the legality of the contested decision in light of the arguments put forward by the Applicant. Is the contested decision consistent with staff rule 5.3? The Tribunal found that the circumstances for the placement of SIBAs on SLWOP are per se exceptional and, consequently, the text of para. 139 of the RAAI is consistent with staff rule 5.3. Staff rule 5.3(f) sets the general principle that a staff...

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The evidence on record, including the investigation report, the coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the Applicant¡¯s contradictory statements, and the inherent probabilities of the situation in the working and living conditions, cumulatively constitute a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, the acts of sexual harassment. Do the established facts legally amount to misconduct? The Tribunal finds...

The Tribunal found that the Administration discharged the burden of establishing that misconduct had occurred with regard to most of the allegations and that the established facts legally amounted to misconduct under the regulations and rules. There were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant.

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants requested management evaluation timeously. 2) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips of February 2018. 3) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay component. 4) The Tribunal rejected the claim that discretion is a criterion for receivability. Merits The ICSC¡¯s...

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants requested management evaluation timeously. 2) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips of February 2018. 3)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay component. 4)The Tribunal rejected the claim that discretion is a criterion for receivability. Merits The ICSC¡¯s...

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants requested management evaluation timeously. 2) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips of August 2017. 3) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay component. 4) The Tribunal rejected the claim that discretion is a criterion for receivability. Merits The ICSC¡¯s...

The Tribunal found that neither JA nor TA were refugees, or beneficiaries of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR assistance or fell within the prohibitions stipulated in staff rule 1.2(e). The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations made against a staff member are conclusive evidence that the staff member was responsible for the reputational damage caused thereby to the Organization. The Applicant had no control over what the media chose to report. Hence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR basing its decision on these facts was unlawful as they were extraneous to the case at hand and irrelevant. The...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Tribunal found that because separation was not the sanction imposed on the Applicant, the applicable standard of proof was one on a preponderance of evidence. This standard was lower than clear and convincing evidence which the Respondent had to prove to show that the Applicant committed misconduct as alleged. It was evident from the facts that the Applicant and at least one other person led a group to the Complainant¡¯s house. The Applicant played an active role in the alleged harassment. This fact was proved to the requisite standard. The Tribunal found that a group of at least five local...