Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hunt, in coordination with colleagues, was covertly communicating with a news media reporter on the Investment Fund transaction, the approval process, and the former Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG)¡¯s role and had thereby leaked information to the reporter.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Hunt failed to prove that his action of reporting possible misconduct within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to outside sources was a protected activity under the Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin on protection against retaliation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, ¡°OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action¡±.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said¡¯s Official Status File. In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not a procedural error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...