Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.
In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. 蘑菇视频DT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. 蘑菇视频DT dismissed this aspect of the Application. 蘑菇视频DT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...
蘑菇视频DT was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the Applicant was prepared to use his power and influence to make life in the United Nations difficult for the Complainant if she pursued her complaint against him. 蘑菇视频DT held that this evidence satisfied the clear and convincing requirement. The evidence also showed that, during the investigation, the Applicant was afforded the due process rights he was entitled to. 蘑菇视频DT held that the disciplinary action of summary dismissal in this matter was justified and proportionate. 蘑菇视频DT dismissed the application.
The acts of sexual harassment committed by the Applicant were of such a persistent and offensive nature that in keeping with the Organization’s zero-tolerance policy he could not remain on the job. However, the Organization’s policy on care and support for persons suffering with mental illness was also clear. The Applicant’s behaviour was influenced by severe mental illness. The illness ought to have been addressed in a more timely and considerate manner by the Respondent by denying his clearance to return to work in March 2015 and in August 2016. He may then have retired due to ill-health...
The Applicant’s attempt to hug V01 did not on its own qualify as an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favour or verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature or any other behaviour of a sexual nature. The Applicant’s asking for V01’s room number on multiple occasions did not constitute sexual harassment. The facts did not establish sexual harassment as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 and as interpreted in various jurisprudence. The Respondent’s investigations were skewed toward finding a case for sexual harassment regardless of the inadequacy of evidence to substantiate the...
Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The evidence on record, including the investigation report, the coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the Applicant’s contradictory statements, and the inherent probabilities of the situation in the working and living conditions, cumulatively constitute a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, the acts of sexual harassment. Do the established facts legally amount to misconduct? The Tribunal finds...
1)Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established: Transmission of pornographic images: Regardless of the Applicant’s intent, the Tribunal found that it is established by clear and convincing evidence that he transmitted pornographic images (images of male genitalia) to and from his 蘑菇视频 Women email account. Incidents involving Mr. SL: Considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal found Mr. SL’s accounts credible which were corroborated by other evidence. It was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant inappropriately touched Mr. SL and...
By not seeking the Medical Director’s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant’s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...
蘑菇视频DT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. 蘑菇视频DT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. 蘑菇视频DT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. 蘑菇视频DT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...
The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration’s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant’s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...
