Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the decision to close the investigation into the former staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful.It found that the account of the incident in which B allegedly rubbed against her presented an equivocal case of sexual harassment, and that it was therefore open to the investigator and to the decision-maker to conclude that the case was of insufficient strength to pursue against B.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the two other incidents invoked by the former staff member ¨C B allegedly walking to her side in a corridor and offering her to drink...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s legal framework.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

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.

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

The allegations in the Applicant¡¯s complaint squarely [fell] in the realm of workplace disagreements about the normal exercise of managerial authority. Section 1.1 of ST/SGB/2019/8 states that ¡°[d]isagreement on work performance or on other work-related issues is normally not considered prohibited conduct and is not dealt with under the provisions of the present bulletin but in the context of performance management¡±. The responsible official¡¯s conclusion that it was unlikely that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case (section 5.5...