Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of ¡°D¡±. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant¡¯s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Field Office (¡°CFO¡±) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, ¡°Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter¡±. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

The Tribunal held:

1. The Applicant repeatedly engaged in attempts of corruption by requesting money from at least six refugees in exchange for promising Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services that should have been provided without charge. As a consequence, the decision to dismiss the Applicant was lawful.

2. The facts which the Applicant was accused of were proved in a consistent and unequivocal manner, and the Respondent fulfilled his burden to prove that the Applicant took bribes from some refuges, or at least that she asked for them.

3. The disciplinary measure was not based solely on anonymous statements...

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant¡¯s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.

The Tribunal held:

a. Any postponement in issuing the Applicant's separation information to the Pension Fund could be justified only to a reasonable timeframe; the indefinite protraction of an investigation would violate a staff member¡¯s contractual rights to have his final entitlement paid and also the right to a timely definition of any eventual disciplinary process against him/her.

b. The prolonged duration of the investigation did not warrant the withholding of the Applicant's final payment and pension for such a long time, considering the ordinary function for the said entitlements in...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

c.The Applicant¡¯s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

d. The record was...

General verbal statements, which the Applicant asserts were made by his Fist Reporting Officer during team meetings, cannot constitute an express promise to renew his TA. More importantly, such verbal statements lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing to substantiate an expectation of renewal of his TA.

The Tribunal found that performance management procedures governed by ST/AI/2010/5 and...

The Tribunal established that the Applicant was duly informed, before accepting the offer letter, of the mandatory nature of the condition of mobility in her proposed employment. However, even if mandatory mobility had not been so explicit in the pre-appointment documents, the regulatory framework stipulates at staff rule 4.1 that it is the letter of appointment (LOA) that contains expressly or by reference the terms and conditions of employment.

Therefore, when the Applicant signed her LOA on 3 October 2023, duly accepting all the terms and conditions of her employment, including the required...

The Tribunal DECIDES to deny the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.