Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application challenging the OIOS¡¯ decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s allegation is misconceived. There was nothing to show that the decision being impunged in the Application was improperly taken, or that it was tainted by factors extraneous to the complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that OIOS acted properly in referring the matters complained about back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR for appropriate investigation and action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the Application as not receivable.

The Applicant did not show that the decision to not renew his appointment was tainted by improper motive or bias, or that the process leading up to the decision to abolish the post he encumbered was irregular or improper. The Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that the Mission acted appropriately under the circumstances before it.

The Applicant sought review of the impugned decision by the Management Evaluation Unit on 1 November 2019, but did not receive a response until 23 June 2020. The application was time barred.

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The offences alleged in the instant case were of a complex nature and were framed in a manner that required several discrete facts to be established so that a sanction of separation could be justified. Each element of the allegations of misconduct the Administration found to have been established was therefore subject to review. With the account of one person to be weighed against another, the Respondent had to properly consider issues of credibility on the record. There was no indication that the Respondent considered the two possible motives. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the disciplinary...

When termination was the possible outcome of the investigation, each allegation of misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence; in other words, the truth of the facts asserted must have been highly probable. The only rule cited as applicable in this case referred to a blood alcohol level as a measure of intoxication. The Applicant was not subjected to a blood test. TheTribunal found that there was no clear or convincing evidence before the Respondent that the Applicant drove while intoxicated. There is no rule prohibiting United Nations staff from having a drink of alcohol...

The Respondent repeatedly told the Applicant in writing from July 2018 to May 2019 that there was no change in his functions, and he was to perform the same duties that had always been assigned in Ramallah. The Respondent¡¯s many reiterations, up to May 2019, of the position made clear since September 2018 did not give rise to a new challengeable decision so as to bring forward the time within which a request for management evaluation could be made.; In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c) it was incumbent on the Applicant to challenge, in a timely manner, the underlying decision and any alleged...

Having proposed closure of the Kisangani site to the General Assembly and the corollary budgetary reductions, the Respondent proceeded with the implementation of his proposal. Rather than reduce the term of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, the Respondent opted instead to lighten the footprint in the Kisangani site by having those; whose services were no longer necessary to go home but without it affecting their benefits or entitlements. The natural consequence of this process was that the Applicant was left with no tasks to perform. While this may have been an unorthodox arrangement, nothing in...

Having proposed closure of the Kamina site to the General Assembly and the corollary budgetary reductions, the Respondent proceeded with the implementation of his proposal. The natural consequence of this process was that the Applicant was left with no tasks to perform. The decision did not amount to a de facto termination by cutting; short the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The appointment continued until the expiration date on 30 June 2019 but was not renewed due to the abolition of the post. There was nothing in the parties¡¯ submissions to show that the decision was perverse or tainted so as to...

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant¡¯s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent¡¯s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors¡¯ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...