Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accepted the Applicant¡¯s witnesses¡¯ as evidence as relevant and admissible. The witnesses generally addressed theatmosphere in which the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA) staff in Abyei functioned, including the reaction of the principal chiefs of the Dinka tribe to policy changes which they did not like. This raised issues to be considered in assessing the complaints of Complainants 1 and 2. Complainants 1 and 2 did not sign or indicate the veracity of their statements. This failure to authenticate the statements created doubt as to the veracity of the statements...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant¡¯s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application challenging the OIOS¡¯ decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s allegation is misconceived. There was nothing to show that the decision being impunged in the Application was improperly taken, or that it was tainted by factors extraneous to the complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that OIOS acted properly in referring the matters complained about back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR for appropriate investigation and action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the Application as not receivable.

The Applicant did not show that the decision to not renew his appointment was tainted by improper motive or bias, or that the process leading up to the decision to abolish the post he encumbered was irregular or improper. The Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that the Mission acted appropriately under the circumstances before it.

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination ¡°on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners¡±. The scope of the ABCC¡¯s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above).; As convincingly explained by the Applicant¡¯s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it¡ªPTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The offences alleged in the instant case were of a complex nature and were framed in a manner that required several discrete facts to be established so that a sanction of separation could be justified. Each element of the allegations of misconduct the Administration found to have been established was therefore subject to review. With the account of one person to be weighed against another, the Respondent had to properly consider issues of credibility on the record. There was no indication that the Respondent considered the two possible motives. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the disciplinary...

When termination was the possible outcome of the investigation, each allegation of misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence; in other words, the truth of the facts asserted must have been highly probable. The only rule cited as applicable in this case referred to a blood alcohol level as a measure of intoxication. The Applicant was not subjected to a blood test. TheTribunal found that there was no clear or convincing evidence before the Respondent that the Applicant drove while intoxicated. There is no rule prohibiting United Nations staff from having a drink of alcohol...