Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01¡¯s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant¡¯s handling of V01¡¯s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

Although not constitutive...

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration¡¯s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

The administrative decision to close a staff member¡¯s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration¡¯s appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was given ¡°too many tasks too fast¡± as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that the...

The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no ruling on this...