Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB, holding that the ITLOS was not obliged to conclude the recruitment exercise once it had begun, and that it had the authority to cancel the process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned by the change to the recruitment procedure during the course of the contested recruitment, but could not discern how this affected Mr. Savadogo¡¯s candidacy. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the ITLOS JAB that Mr. Savadogo¡¯s allegations of bias against the Registrar in the recruitment were countered by the fact that the President of ITLOS made the significant decisions in the recruitment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed Mr. Mirella¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT evaluated Mr. Mirella¡¯s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected appellant¡¯s contention that because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Disciplinary Framework, the assessment of the facts of misconduct is not exclusive to OAIS, but that the Director of the Department of Human Resources (Director/DHR) must also analyze the evidence, and such analysis could lead DHR to a different conclusion than that of OAIS. Accordingly, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Administration had the authority or locus standi to proceed with a disciplinary process even in the absence of a finding of misconduct by OAIS. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-¨¤-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order requesting information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...