Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her.

Whereas the Applicant¡¯s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) ¡°a list of candidates¡± that was ¡°endorsed by a central review body¡± or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that ¡°[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction¡±. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.

The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to end...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable in respect to the five contested decsions in the Applicant's application. The Tribunal found that, inter alia, the Applicant failed either to request management evaluation of a contested decision or because the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation was time barred. With respect to contested decision 5, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant had failed to clearly identify a reviewable administrative decision.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the requisite standard to rebut the presumption that the restructuring was genuine and therefore a valid reason for not renewing her FTA.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant¡¯s view that her involvement with ¡°contentious¡± discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.

The Applicant in this case was given the opportunity to complete his application with the mandatory prerequisite for the filing of an application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Applicant appears to have misunderstood what constitutes a ¡°management evaluation request¡±. He assumed that querying the process with the hiring manager, and later, the Mission¡¯s Chief of Staff, constitutes ¡°management evaluation¡± for the purposes of proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. It does not.

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.