Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna for reimbursement were not authentic. Despite the foregoing, the Applicant certified to Cigna that the information he was submitting was ¡°correct and true¡± and was therefore, acknowledging that he was aware of the contents of the medical claim and attesting to its authenticity.

The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. Excluding the fake invoice and the fake medical report, no other...

On the issue of illegality, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been removed from his official functions, without case or proper justification, and had been forced to re-apply for his own previous functions. These decisions were taken without reference to any failings of the Applicant, misconduct, indication that he has not successfully performed his functions in the past, or indication that he would not be able to perform his functions in the future.

On the issue of damages, the Tribunal found that although the Applicant kept on holding a continuing appointment at the D-1 level, he...

The documents on record demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Applicant had rented out his flat in Addis Ababa to two other staff members, based on a lease with an inflated rent (and without paying agent¡¯s fees), and that the latter two used that lease to claim rental subsidy from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR in an amount undue.

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in entitlement fraud and received reimbursement for medical services that had not occurred. He falsely certified and submitted three Cigna claims; for which he was paid a total of USD17,171.26. He was not entitled to this reimbursement. As Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP is self-insured, these funds represented a loss to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP.

The Applicant¡¯s behaviour fell within what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices (approved in October 2018) defines as fraud. The established facts constituted misconduct.

As to proportionality of the...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant¡¯s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

The issue was whether the Applicant was entitled to education grant for his son¡¯s last year of a five-year degree program which includes two semesters (approximately one year) of no cost/no tuition co-operatives/internships.

The Tribunal held that since the Applicant's son was enrolled in his educational institution during years three and four of his programme, during which the co-op semesters were part of the curriculum, there was no basis not to count years three and four as school years. As these years entailed less expenses on account of tuition not being paid during the co-op semesters...

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...