The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not suffered any material or moral prejudice. With regard to OSLA’s refusal to provide her with legal assistance, the Tribunal found that the decision is not illegal since there was a conflict of interest . The Applicant is a staff member of OSLA and her application before the Tribunal concerns a written reprimand issued by her immediate supervisor, the Chief of OSLA.
The Applicant’s actions were reasonable and in accordance with her obligation to carefully verify the cost of administrative services, procurement and logistical support, since all the costs were supported by 蘑菇视频AMI, in order to ensure that all the provisions of the OIOS Audit Manual were respected. There was no concrete negative result on the planned audit resulting from the annulment of the first MOP and that the Applicant’s actions, which she was taking in her capacity as CMS in 蘑菇视频AMI, consisting in a careful review of the alternative means to a face-to-face visit which could have resulted...
Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of “supervisor “ as per the 蘑菇视频ON Security and Safety Service (蘑菇视频ON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the 蘑菇视频ON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide “security...
The Administration informed the Applicant that “it will issue an administrative reprimand”. The request for management evaluation was made within 60 days of that communication and the application is therefore receivable even if the actual reprimand was issued months later. The Administration decided that the Applicant did not exercise her discretion and regulated her conduct “with the interests of the United Nations only in view” and the expression of her personal views. While there is no specific rule requiring the Applicant to consult with 蘑菇视频ICEF before expressing her personal views, that...
Article 18.3 of the 蘑菇视频DT 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...
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...
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...
Concerning the corrective measures: To the extent that the fact-finding panel’s investigation resulted in a finding of actions on the part of the Applicant that called for corrective measures in the form of training and counselling, the Respondent’s actions were procedurally proper. The cautionary corrective measure of providing training and counselling for the Applicant was appropriately taken in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5 in circumstances where, although there was no misconduct, the Applicant’s manner of performing his duties caused a staff member to feel harassed. Concerning the decision...
Regarding the Respondent’s claim that the Applicant cannot challenge the managerial action imposed on him for failing to request a management evaluation, the Tribunal found that the challenged managerial action is a non-disciplinary measure imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process and therefore the Applicant can challenge it, along with disciplinary measures, without requesting a management evaluation under staff rule 11.2(b). Regarding the question of whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established, the Tribunal found that the facts that the...
