Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that V01 was a credible witness. Her testimony was taken independently, bearing in mind all the circumstances, and established the facts that sexual exploitation and abuse took place. The Tribunal found W01 a credible witness, her testimony relating to the first incident which she resolved informally with the Applicant was consistent with and corroborated V01¡¯s testimony. The Applicant did not successfully discredit this testimony. The Tribunal found that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. The Applicant engaged in sexual...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not established that she fit in any of the three categories enunciated in the Statute. She could not sue as a staff member because she was not, and she could not sue as a former staff member because the claim had no relation to her contractual status. The Tribunal having found that the Applicant was not the decedent¡¯s widow, she was not entitled to the benefits in any capacity. The Applicant had no standing ratione personae.

Therefore, the facts resulting from this investigation were not established to a sufficient standard that would permit the Administration to later rely on them to act against the Applicant once he became a staff member. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Administration acted as a reasonable decision maker in deciding to terminate the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment and finds the contested decision unlawful and decides to rescind it. The contested decision is rescinded. Under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute, the Respondent may elect to pay the Applicant compensation in lieu of the...

If the scope of understanding of what the mandatory enrollment-related fees are under sec. 3.1(a) were to be limited in accordance with the Respondent¡¯s submissions, this should therefore have been reflected in the relevant legal framework. This is, however, not the case. Under the plain meaning rule, if the Respondent, namely the Secretary-General, wants the situation to be regulated as contended by his Counsel, this should therefore also clearly and unambiguously follow from the relevant legal framework, in particular ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, which the Secretary-General has promulgated himself...

Concerning the corrective measures: To the extent that the fact-finding panel¡¯s investigation resulted in a finding of actions on the part of the Applicant that called for corrective measures in the form of training and counselling, the Respondent¡¯s actions were procedurally proper. The cautionary corrective measure of providing training and counselling for the Applicant was appropriately taken in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5 in circumstances where, although there was no misconduct, the Applicant¡¯s manner of performing his duties caused a staff member to feel harassed. Concerning the decision...

The act of cheating in which the Applicant engaged did not necessitate the use of her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP email address. Therefore, the use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP email address is a distinct and separate from assisting AA in cheating. Considering that the Applicant was a senior staff member, that she had a personal interest in the outcome of the tests in that the person she assisted was her partner, and that the assistance that she provided was significant as she provided AA with full written answers to the test questions, which he then almost completely copied and submitted, the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the Applicant¡¯s admission and testimonies of other witnesses during the investigation and at the hearing, it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant physically assaulted another staff member on 20 March 2016. On whether the facts amounted to misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s action violated staff rule 1.2(g) and constituted workplace harassment, which is prohibited by staff rule 1.2(f). Accordingly, the Applicant¡¯s action amounted to misconduct. With regard to whether the sanction was proportionate to the...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. With regard to ratione temporis, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 31 May 2019. She then ought to have requested management evaluation by 30 July 2019. She however, submitted her request on 30 December 2019, five months late, and outside the 60-day period. The Tribunal thus held that her request for management evaluation was time-barred and therefore, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not competent to...

The Tribunal recalls that there is a procedure to challenge administrative decisions which a staff member deems to be in violation of his or her contractual rights. The Applicant, who is represented by professional counsel, cannot bypass the applicable procedures to indirectly introduce decisions, which were not timely challenged, into these proceedings to argue that they form part of a pattern of abuse against her. To allow this tactic would result in an upset of the administrative legal order of the Organization. The Tribunal notes that Applicant disagrees with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s evaluation of her...

The present matter can be determined on a priority basis without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply as provided for in art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. There is no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. Accordingly, the Applicant does not have standing and the application is not receivable ratione personae. Having filed the application pending the response of the management evaluation and prior to the expiry of the relevant response period, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the matter at issue. The...

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

ST/AI/400 explicitly applies to the abandonment of post and sets out the process to be followed under such circumstances. The Applicant's case is not one of abandonment of post but one of unauthorized absence under ST/AI/2005/3. The mere submission of a medical certificate in support of an absence does not suffice. Said certificate must be approved by the respective Medical Service. This has not been so in the Applicant's case, whose medical situation will be examined by a Medical Board pursuant to ST/AI/2019/1, and her placement on SLWOP is not a violation of her rights.

Management evaluation of the decision concerning Applicant's share of contribution for medical insurance not filed within the statutory deadline. Consequently, this part of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Application is receivable concerning the decision concerning the Applicant's share of contribution for the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF). Art. 25.b)i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations clearly provides that contributions during SLWOP are paid either 1) in full by the staff member, 2) in full by the employing Organization or 3) partly by the staff member and...

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant¡¯s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal¡¯s earlier final finding on the matter, it...

It follows from the case record that the reasons for rejecting the Applicant¡¯s return-to-work plan on 13 May 2019 were only presented to the Applicant in the Respondent¡¯s reply submitted by Counsel for the Respondent. This was evidently a procedural error. The scope of this irregularity was exacerbated by the statutory requirement of sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3, which demands ¡°the manager ¡­ to establish that the requested accommodations represent a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace¡± (italics added). The Applicant¡¯s manager was not Counsel for the Respondent before the Dispute...

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.