Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant was reckless in his failure to report a fraud which he was aware of. He chose to conceal and abet the perpetration of a fraud. The facts were established to the requisite standard by the Applicant¡¯s own admissions and the evidence on record. The Tribunal held that the established facts clearly constituted misconduct as charged. The elements of the charge of abetting and concealing fraud were established through the evidence. The Applicant who had possession of important knowledge about fraudulent document passing through his office...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization¡¯s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization¡¯s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the...

Receivability ratione materiae. The Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was not clear on whether he was making allegations of misconduct against his Supervisor, which would need to be dutifully investigated, or citing performance or management issues to be addressed by management. Similarly, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that the matter of lawfulness of the decision to place him on ALWP was ever formally contested by him. Hence, any determination against the decision not to further investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints of harassment against his supervisor or against his...

In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/028, the Tribunal rejected the application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2021/023, finding that the Applicant is ineligible for boarding allowance for his child. In this case, the Applicant essentially challenges the same decision to find him ineligible for boarding allowance for his child, the issue of which was already resolved in Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/028. Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal rejects the present application.

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence supports the Hiring Manager¡¯s evaluation of the selected candidate¡¯s candidacy. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that it was within the Respondent¡¯s discretion to select the successful candidate. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that he had a significant chance of selection over the selected candidate, absent any of the procedural irregularities that he alleges.

Whether the Administration provided a valid and fair reason for the contested decision In determining whether a valid and fair reason exists to terminate the Applicant¡¯s appointment for unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will examine in turn the following issues: i. Whether the Applicant in fact failed to meet the performance standards; ii. Whether he was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required standards; iii. Whether he was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards; and iv. Whether termination of appointment is an appropriate action for...

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration¡¯s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, to whom the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first explained that this is a case where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision?maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision?maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years¡¯ net base...

Mr. Kuate appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the determination of which staff members should be compared is ¡°primarily guided by the functional title as per the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment¡±, there can be cases where the functional title does not reflect the actual functions performed as in the present case. In these circumstances, the CHRO must determine which individual falls into which occupational group. Ms. Barud¡¯s role and functions changed in May 2018 to a Facilities Management Assistant. Therefore, at the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application in relation to the non-renewal decision was moot because the non-renewal decision never materialised was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal decision was overtaken by the Appellant¡¯s separation for health reasons and that the Appellant had not challenged the actual decision that ultimately resulted in the termination of her employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have rescinded the Administration¡¯s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that ¡°[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously¡± under the rubric ¡°Reference check¡± was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in...