Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Having considered the parties¡¯ submissions on the matter of the appropriate relief for the Applicant, the Tribunal: (i) Orders rescission of the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant; (ii) Orders the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant; (iii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant¡¯s lost earnings from the date of his summary dismissal to the date of his reinstatement with interest at 8% less US$ 2,600 per month for the said period; (iv) Orders that the Applicant be served a written reprimand to be filed in his Official Status File for the reasons cited at paragraph 8.1 (iii)...

Outcome: Appeal upheld. Decision held to be a breach of staff regulation 2.1 and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Respondent ordered to pay compensation of the difference in salary, allowances and other entitlements between the applicant¡¯s current level and the level at which she should have been classified since the date she made her request. Respondent ordered to pay compensation for non-material damage due to frustration and humiliation compounded by delays at six months¡¯ net base salary.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant after the parties reached an agreement.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The more serious an allegation against a staff member and attendant sanction, the higher the degree of proof required. Establishing criminal liability in investigations and judicial proceedings even in the context of a civil matter such as this must necessarily require that a standard higher than the ordinary one of a balance of probabilities must be attained. The OIOS Investigations Manual requires that investigators approach matters with an ¡°open mind¡± and emphasises that their task is to ¡°establish facts¡± and draw ¡°reasonable conclusions¡± from those facts. It is a ¡°dispassionate...

From the moment that the new Executive Secretary took up his functions at ESCWA, the Deputy Executive Secretary was no longer competent to decide, on 8 August 2007, to reassign the Applicant. Indeed, there is no documentary evidence that he had received delegation of authority from the Executive Secretary to take the contested decision, which is thus illegal. However, on 16 August 2007, the Executive Secretary confirmed the decision taken on 8 August 2007 by his Deputy. This new decision is legal but it does not have the effect of regularizing ex post facto the decision of 8 August 2007...

The Tribunal¡¯s findings were that the Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given that the Applicant failed to abide by staff regulation 1.2 (b) and former staff rule 110.1, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

The Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given the gravity of the allegations, the Tribunal decided that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.