Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. It was not disputed that since the Applicant was on private business at the time he fell ill, his case did not fall under any of the exceptions of sec. 6.3 of the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±). The Tribunal found that the MIP Rules clearly provide that only reasonable and customary expenses at the duty station are covered by the MIP and are, thus, considered as ¡°recognized expenses¡± unless one of the exceptions set out in...

The Tribunal held that the facts arose from the Applicant¡¯s former employment relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application to be receivable.

No new evidence is to be filed by the parties with their closing submission and pursuant to the principle of equality of arms, both parties must have the opportunity to test the evidence on record. Disciplinary proceedings within the Organization do not amount to criminal procedures. Use of video footage from an external entity during the investigation is not illegal as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHC rules provide that investigators may avail themselves of external supporting evidence. Sick leave requests must be approved by a staff member¡¯s service/Human Resources section or the respective Medical Service. The...

The Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal recalled that a former staff member has access to the Dispute Tribunal only in respect of an administrative decision affecting the terms of his or her former appointment or contract. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing the application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator¡¯s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...