Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

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...

OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant¡¯s complaint was reviewed in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Applicant did not present a prima facie case of harassment as the claims were unsubstantiated and she did not provide adequate proof to support them. The facts did not amount to misconduct or prohibited conduct. The conduct the Applicant alleged even if true, was not harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Consequently, the Administration had a legitimate basis not to proceed with an investigation into these matters. The Applicant did not proffer any evidence to...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first claim, the Tribunal held that pursuant to staff rule 6.2 the entitlement to sick leave does not follow a cycle calculated since the date of appointment as argued by the Applicant, but, rather, is calculated pursuant to its own cycle determined by the date of the sick leave. The Tribunal thus concluded that the method used by the administration to calculate the Applicant's sick leave days was consistent with staff rule 6.2, while the method advocated by the Applicant was not. Accordingly, the application failed on the score of sick leave. On the Applicant¡¯s...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was contesting an MEU response, which is not an appealable administrative decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable because the contested decision was made on 21 May 2020 and the Applicant requested management evaluation on 25 October 2020, based on a later decision by MONUSCO dated on 8 October 2020. The Tribunal held that the 8 October 2020 email did not reset the time line for requesting management evaluation because it was a reiteration of the 21 May 2020 decision. The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal held that ¡°the reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timelines; rather...

The Tribunals¡¯ jurisprudence underscores that the key characteristic of an administrative decision is that it must produce adverse consequences for a staff member¡¯s employment contract or terms of appointment. Decisions that extend a contract, even on a short-term basis, are in the staff member¡¯s favour and do not adversely affect their rights. It is only after a report has been made and processed purusant to ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) that its handling may be the subject matter of a case before the Tribunal. It...