Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was sanctioned for: (a) misuse of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s ICT resources and (b) harassment and abuse of authority in relation to her treatment of some vendor employees. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established Since the Applicant does not dispute the underlying facts of the first charge (access of former personnel's ICT resources without authorization), the Tribunal finds that these facts have been established to the required standard. Regarding the second charge, the Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes the following facts: a. The Applicant...

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.

That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issue were therefore ruled inadmissible. The Tribunal held that the ALWOP decision was based on the criteria set out in section 11.4 b of ST/AI/2017/1. In the Tribunal¡¯s view, based on the nature of the allegations (the public engagement in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle in a heavily trafficked area of Tel...

Article 18.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure provides that a party wishing to submit evidence that is in the possession of the opposing party or of any other entity may, in the initial application or at any stage of the proceedings, request the Dispute Tribunal to order the production of the evidence. That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issued were therefore ruled inadmissible...

Since the Applicant in this case is separated, he can no longer be reassigned, as he requests. The application is therefore moot.

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the record before it, there was no dispute that the decision to abolish the post the Applicant was occupying and, consequently, the decision not to extend his appointment originated from the restructuring approved in the 2016/17 budget for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA by the General Assembly. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination against him. As such, the contested decision was taken in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

On the issue of reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was reassigned to a position at the same grade and level commensurate with her skills and competencies. By Inter-Office-Memorandum dated 18 August 2020, the Under-Secretary-General for Operational Support (¡°USG/DOS¡±) reassigned the Applicant to another P-5 position, allowing her to maintain her grade, level and contract status. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant had not met her burden to show that the contested decision was ill-motivated or in bad faith. Mere assertions and innuendo were insufficient. On the...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...