Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hunt, in coordination with colleagues, was covertly communicating with a news media reporter on the Investment Fund transaction, the approval process, and the former Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG)¡¯s role and had thereby leaked information to the reporter.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Hunt failed to prove that his action of reporting possible misconduct within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to outside sources was a protected activity under the Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin on protection against retaliation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that two periods of delay in addressing the former staff member¡¯s complaints was not evidence of bias against her. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that delay alone is not indicative of bias.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the former staff member¡¯s claims related to a certain press release had been decided by prior Tribunal judgments and could not be relitigated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly confirmed that the establishment of the fact-finding Panel, its process of fact-finding and reporting, and its interactions with the former staff member as...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness¡¯s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member¡¯s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute...

The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (¡°OIAI¡±) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant¡¯s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...

Applicant¡¯s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the¡°harm this case has caused¡± him and the ¡°sensitive information¡± referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...