Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant¡¯s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant¡¯s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (¡°the Policy¡±), a formal complaint has to be addressed to OAIS within six...

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant¡¯s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant¡¯s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (¡°the Policy¡±), a formal complaint has to be addressed in writing to OAIS...

The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.

The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision, since the decision to close the case had no direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Administrative decision: While staff members have a duty to report possible misconduct, a decision by the Organization not to investigate the matter does not have direct legal consequences on the contractual rights of the staff member, unless the complaint made by the staff member was one of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5.

The facts at issue and their legal characterization (physical assault) were established. However, the Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was disproportionate, considering that the mitigating circumstances applicable, notably the Applicant¡¯s mental health condition at the time of the incident giving rise to the disciplinary measure and alleged provocation before it, were not fully and properly considered. It was noted that the investigation failed to gather sufficient evidence on these aspects, which where thus not properly put before the decision-maker. Unlawfulness of a ¡°forfeit...

The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT deemed it appropriate to decide on the application, without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply. The Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the contested decision, but failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable.

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...