Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the process leading to the imposition of the disciplinary measure was carried out in compliance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Legal Framework for Addressing non-compliance with United Nations Standards of Conduct and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Office of Audit and Investigation Guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not deny or even challenge the fact that the Respondent had proved that she had: i...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant¡¯s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged failures and shortcomings in the investigation process did not prejudice the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had discussed an amended procurement bid to enable LL to be awarded the procurement contract; that, as a result, the bid was fraudulently amended and with the Applicant¡¯s acquiescence. Thus, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had...

The Applicant¡¯s roster membership did not give her a right to appointment to FS-5 positions and did not give her a right to be placed against available positions on a priority and non-competitive basis. The Organization has no obligation to assist a staff member affected by downsizing to obtain a non-competitive promotion. The Administration¡¯s obligation is to make proper, reasonable, and good faith efforts to assist the Applicant in finding an alternative post at her level or at a lower grade but not at a higher level.

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant¡¯s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...