Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member¡¯s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2023/011 was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reclassification request was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL and not by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the former staff member¡¯s knowledge that he was in a prohibited family relationship with another staff member, Mr. S.R.B.

Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if the information provided by the former staff member was false, he could not have intended to mislead the Organization by providing or omitting it. On the contrary, the evidence established that when he made his relevant applications, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Mr. S.R.B. was employed by the United Nations. In...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that ST/SGB/2003/13 imposes a requirement of ¡°undue advantage¡± for sexual exploitation to occur. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the former staff member abused the position of vulnerability of V01 for sexual purposes (i.e., engaging in at least four acts of sexual intercourse), which constitutes sexual exploitation and abuse. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT itself acknowledged that V01, allegedly a minor, was vulnerable and less powerful than the former staff member, and that his actions had a sexual connotation. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member¡¯s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application and his management evaluation...