Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the former staff member¡¯s knowledge that he was in a prohibited family relationship with another staff member, Mr. S.R.B.

Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if the information provided by the former staff member was false, he could not have intended to mislead the Organization by providing or omitting it. On the contrary, the evidence established that when he made his relevant applications, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Mr. S.R.B. was employed by the United Nations. In...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the lawfulness of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches ¡°for several years¡± and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT therefore held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...