Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande d'indemnisation d'ATR en tant que victime de harc¨¨lement sexuel n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e ne concernait pas l'indemnisation et le cadre juridique applicable ne pr¨¦voyait pas un tel droit. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a not¨¦ que, bien que l'article 10(5)(b) du Statut du TUDN autorise l'indemnisation du pr¨¦judice, ce recours doit ¨ºtre li¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative faisant l'objet du recours, qui dans le cas pr¨¦sent concernait la divulgation de mesures disciplinaires et non une indemnisation.

Le...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TSD avait correctement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rejetant les all¨¦gations de racisme au sein de la CAF formul¨¦es par l'ancien fonctionnaire, ainsi que son affirmation selon laquelle son avocat avait ¨¦t¨¦ trait¨¦ de mani¨¨re injuste lors de l'audience du TSD, et en rejetant sa demande de citer l'enqu¨ºteur ¨¤ compara?tre. N¨¦anmoins, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que le TSD avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¤ l'origine de la faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e avaient ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦s par des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve clairs et convaincants, en particulier dans son ¨¦valuation de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Administration avait l¨¦galement impos¨¦ la mesure disciplinaire consistant en un d¨¦classement d'un ¨¦chelon avec report de trois ans de l'¨¦ligibilit¨¦ ¨¤ la promotion et une formation ¨¤ la sensibilit¨¦ au genre. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique applicable, notamment l'article 1.2 f) du R¨¨glement du personnel et la circulaire ST/SGB/2008/5, en concluant que le comportement du fonctionnaire, ¨¤ savoir une remarque inappropri¨¦e faisant r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ la nudit¨¦ et un geste de caresse, l...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que plusieurs mois apr¨¨s le d¨¦c¨¨s du participant au Fonds, l'appelant avait produit des formulaires Pens.A/2 visant ¨¤ modifier la d¨¦signation du b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire du r¨¨glement r¨¦siduel, sign¨¦s d'une empreinte digitale et non de la signature du participant. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement pris note des preuves m¨¦dicales attestant des signes de d¨¦mence du participant.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que l'appelant n'avait fourni aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui de l'affirmation selon laquelle les capacit¨¦s mentales du participant s'¨¦taient am¨¦lior¨¦es au moment o¨´ il avait appos¨¦ son empreinte digitale sur les formulaires...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que les performances de l'ancienne fonctionnaire n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦valu¨¦es de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et objective. Il a constat¨¦ qu'elle savait que son accord de t¨¦l¨¦travail ¨¦tait temporaire et qu'elle s'¨¦tait n¨¦anmoins pr¨¦sent¨¦e ¨¤ son lieu d'affectation aux Fidji quelques mois plus tard seulement. Il a soulign¨¦ que son retard dans la demande de paiement d'une indemnit¨¦ forfaitaire de voyage et dans la demande de visa pour sa m¨¨re ne justifiait pas son absence de pr¨¦sentation en temps voulu. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ que, pour ¨¦valuer...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae car il n'avait pas tent¨¦ de r¨¦soudre le litige par l'interm¨¦diaire du Bureau du M¨¦diateur des Fonds et programmes des Nations Unies, comme l'exigeait explicitement l'accord de r¨¨glement qu'il avait express¨¦ment accept¨¦. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'accord de r¨¨glement restaient contraignants et ex¨¦cutoires pour les parties, et que le TNDU n'avait commis aucune erreur en obligeant les parties ¨¤ respecter ces termes.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵO a en outre estim¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant¡¯s signature. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant¡¯s dementia.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant¡¯s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four-pronged...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly explained away...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the former staff member¡¯s performance had not been fairly and objectively evaluated. It found that she knew that her telecommuting arrangement was temporary and nevertheless reported to her duty station in Fiji only months later. It emphasized that her delay in requesting the payment of a travel lump sum and in applying for a visa for her mother did not excuse her failure to report timeously. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, in assessing her performance, the Administration was entitled to consider the extent of, reasons, and consequences of her...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur en jugeant recevable la demande de Mme Fakhouri.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, bien qu'elle f?t membre du personnel, la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e par Mme Fakhouri concernait les conditions d'un contrat potentiel non pas en tant que membre du personnel, mais en tant que contractante ind¨¦pendante, et que, par cons¨¦quent, la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'¨¦tait pas susceptible de recours. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a soulign¨¦ que l'article 2(1)(a) du Statut du DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA stipule clairement que les recours peuvent ¨ºtre form¨¦s contre les d¨¦cisions administratives lorsque ces...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que les primes d'assurance maladie impos¨¦es par l'UPU en 2023 variaient en fonction de facteurs tels que l'?ge, le statut de retraite et le pays de r¨¦sidence.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'argument des requ¨¦rants concernant le principe de solidarit¨¦ utilis¨¦ dans la l¨¦gislation suisse en mati¨¨re de s¨¦curit¨¦ sociale n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦, car ce principe n'¨¦tait plus appliqu¨¦ par l'UPU depuis plusieurs ann¨¦es.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¨¦termin¨¦ que le taux de contribution de l'UPU ne diff¨¦rait pas entre les diff¨¦rents groupes d'?ge et qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve que les augmentations de primes ¨¦taient...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la mesure transitoire ¨C accordant 10 semaines de cong¨¦ sp¨¦cial avec salaire int¨¦gral (SLWFP) uniquement aux m¨¨res qui ¨¦taient encore en cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ au 1er janvier 2023 ¨C n'¨¦tait pas ill¨¦galement discriminatoire.

Elle a estim¨¦ que, m¨ºme si l'on pouvait faire valoir que le fait de privil¨¦gier les m¨¨res biologiques par rapport aux p¨¨res dans les dispositions transitoires entre l'ancien et le nouveau r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental ¨¦tait discriminatoire, cela ne constituait pas une discrimination ill¨¦gale pour deux raisons : i)...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les faits avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes. Il a estim¨¦ que le t¨¦moignage de la plaignante ¨¦tait coh¨¦rent avec ses d¨¦clarations ant¨¦rieures, ¨¤ l'exception de la date de l'incident. Toutefois, la correction de la date qu'elle a apport¨¦e lors de l'audience a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e de bonne foi et n'a pas nui ¨¤ sa cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. Son r¨¦cit a ¨¦t¨¦ corrobor¨¦ par deux autres membres du personnel, M.V. et M.M., qui ont tous deux t¨¦moign¨¦ devant le TDPI. Le TNP a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que l'ancien membre du personnel n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que ces t¨¦moins avaient un motif...