Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and was denied.

Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.

The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager¡¯s thorough assessment of the Applicant¡¯s professional experience.

The Applicant¡¯s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant¡¯s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant¡¯s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Applicant admitted that the hotel receipts he provided to the Organization were false. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Respondent had proven by overwhelming evidence, beyond all possible doubt, that the Applicant submitted false receipts for reimbursement and that, as a result, he was paid USD18,519.12. The Tribunal, further, established that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant owed the Organization at least USD17,213.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not a procedural error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant¡¯s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...