Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization¡¯s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...

The Tribunal found that V01 was a credible witness. Her testimony was taken independently, bearing in mind all the circumstances, and established the facts that sexual exploitation and abuse took place. The Tribunal found W01 a credible witness, her testimony relating to the first incident which she resolved informally with the Applicant was consistent with and corroborated V01¡¯s testimony. The Applicant did not successfully discredit this testimony. The Tribunal found that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. The Applicant engaged in sexual...

The Tribunal recalls that there is a procedure to challenge administrative decisions which a staff member deems to be in violation of his or her contractual rights. The Applicant, who is represented by professional counsel, cannot bypass the applicable procedures to indirectly introduce decisions, which were not timely challenged, into these proceedings to argue that they form part of a pattern of abuse against her. To allow this tactic would result in an upset of the administrative legal order of the Organization. The Tribunal notes that Applicant disagrees with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s evaluation of her...

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The Applicant¡¯s appointment rested with the Human Resources Section and not the DMS, the mere recommendation by the latter of extension of the contract did not constitute a firm commitment for the Organization under the applicable jurisprudence, nor did the extension of his ground pass, which is a mere organizational permission. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment. The Applicant¡¯s post was among those whose unique function was to be abolished in the affected unit and therefore, deemed to be a ¡°dry cut¡±...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against her first reporting officer¡¯s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/030 and 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant¡¯s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...

The Administration has to prove their allegation of breaches of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal took the view that the case of misrepresentations had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. While the Applicant made several submissions in mitigation, she did not introduce any facts that constituted a denial of the breaches alleged. The Organization must maintain standards and be fair to all concerned. Consequently, if others were rejected for employment during the recruitment process because they were not qualified, then this should be the position across the board...