Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Organization¡¯s jurisdictional competence does not extend to the physical assault of a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member by a staff member. It was within the province of the Respondent or his agents in this case to investigate the events leading up to the physical assault of Ms. Oduke. Having established that Ms. Oduke had been physically assaulted, the appropriate action for the Administration after that would have been for Ms. Oduke, as a non-staff member, to be advised or even assisted to file charges againstthe Applicant for assault in the appropriate local court. The conclusions of the local court...

The Tribunal considered both applications receivable, and held that both the fact-finding panel and the ICTR Registrar misinterpreted the definition of harassment contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 by finding that an action which happens only at one instance, without any previous or subsequent similar behavior, does not amount to harassment, since harassment normally implies a series of incidents. The Tribunal recalled the definition of harassment and its constitutive elements, which may also include a one-off incident as affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, and decided to rescind the decision to close...

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant¡¯s contention that WFP¡¯s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant¡¯s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...

The Applicant requests the Tribunal to find that his due process rights were breached, that a copy of the report from the Investigation Panel be produced to him. There is no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not follow the applicable procedures or that his due process rights were not respected. It is within the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion as to whether or not initiate action against a staff member. The case is dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided to join both cases and following a review of the procedure followed, found both decisions to be illegal. It ordered the rescission of both decisions and that a new decision be taken on the Applicant¡¯s complaint. It also considered that the irregularities committed resulted in undue delay in the handling of the complaint, which caused the Applicant moral harm warranting compensation of 8,000 Swiss francs.

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, on the one hand, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA decision to close the case given the conclusions of the investigation constituted a valid exercise of discretion by the Administration, and that the Organization did not breach the Applicant¡¯s rights by not sharing the full investigation report with her. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA failed to take diligent action with respect to the Applicant¡¯s complaint and that it incurred inordinate delays both in reviewing and assessing the Applicant¡¯s complaint and in setting up a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation into her...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.