Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first clarified that the appeal was not directed against the second sanction, given the former staff member¡¯s failure to appeal that sanction in a timely manner, but rather concerned ensuring that his personal records with the United Nations were accurate.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration¡¯s reliance on the previous disciplinary findings and first sanctions in determining the second sanction was erroneous. It held that when the Administration considered and decided the second sanction, the former staff member¡¯s pending Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT appeal regarding the first sanctions...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

There is no evidence of collusion or bias against the Applicant. On the contrary, several congruent testimonies corroborated the complainants¡¯ statements and confirmed the allegations of bullying and harassment against the Applicant. The Applicant failed to substantiate his arguments against the complaint and the complainants. The facts are established by a preponderance of evidence and constitute misconduct.
Bearing in mind the nature of the facts attributed to the Applicant, it is not unreasonable that he be obliged to attend mandatory training to improve his managerial and communication¡¯s...