Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT case concerning ABE. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it clear that the issues before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the case on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus agreed with the conclusion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that ABE¡¯s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of ¡°administrative decision¡± within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

c.The Applicant¡¯s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

d. The record was...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that ST/SGB/2003/13 imposes a requirement of ¡°undue advantage¡± for sexual exploitation to occur. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the former staff member abused the position of vulnerability of V01 for sexual purposes (i.e., engaging in at least four acts of sexual intercourse), which constitutes sexual exploitation and abuse. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT itself acknowledged that V01, allegedly a minor, was vulnerable and less powerful than the former staff member, and that his actions had a sexual connotation. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

Since the ABCC was advised by a technical body its decision does not require management evaluation.

The Tribunal determined that the application was properly made but it was denied because the Tribunal could find no fault with the decision of the ABBC to deny the Applicant's claim for an entitlement to compensation for injury and illness incurred during and resulting from employment on the behalf of the United Nations.