Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de maintenir la note de performance ? C ¨C R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? attribu¨¦e au fonctionnaire constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours ayant un effet juridique direct sur son emploi. Elle a fait remarquer que, dans le cadre juridique applicable, une note ? R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? justifie la d¨¦cision de ne pas accorder d'augmentation salariale et que celle-ci doit ¨ºtre suspendue dans l'attente des r¨¦sultats d'un PIP. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ que ces cons¨¦quences constituaient des effets d¨¦favorables r¨¦sultant directement...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la faute de l'ancien membre du personnel ¨¦tait ¨¦tablie et que la mesure disciplinaire de licenciement, assortie d'une indemnit¨¦ tenant lieu de pr¨¦avis et sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement, ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e au regard du cadre r¨¦glementaire de l'Agence. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a soulign¨¦ que la fraude et les pratiques collusoires sont consid¨¦r¨¦es comme des domaines tr¨¨s pr¨¦occupants et que la faute commise par une personne occupant un poste de confiance, tel qu'un membre du Comit¨¦ des pr¨ºts du Fonds de...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Administration avait l¨¦galement impos¨¦ la mesure disciplinaire consistant en un d¨¦classement d'un ¨¦chelon avec report de trois ans de l'¨¦ligibilit¨¦ ¨¤ la promotion et une formation ¨¤ la sensibilit¨¦ au genre. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique applicable, notamment l'article 1.2 f) du R¨¨glement du personnel et la circulaire ST/SGB/2008/5, en concluant que le comportement du fonctionnaire, ¨¤ savoir une remarque inappropri¨¦e faisant r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ la nudit¨¦ et un geste de caresse, l...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la contestation par l'ancienne fonctionnaire de la d¨¦cision de l'ALWP et de la d¨¦cision de New York n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car elle n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer ces d¨¦cisions.

En ce qui concerne la mesure disciplinaire, le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵI a d¨¦termin¨¦ que ses d¨¦clarations et ses publications sur les r¨¦seaux sociaux constituaient des activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures non autoris¨¦es ¨¦quivalant ¨¤ une faute professionnelle. Il a not¨¦ qu'elle avait publi¨¦ des d¨¦clarations, des articles et donn¨¦ des interviews sans autorisation pr¨¦alable, malgr¨¦ des avertissements r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦s. Il a estim¨¦ que...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦montr¨¦ par des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'ancienne employ¨¦e avait commis une faute grave en : i) ne restituant pas ¨¤ la coop¨¦rative de cr¨¦dit f¨¦d¨¦rale des Nations Unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) des fonds d'un montant de 587 428,65 dollars am¨¦ricains qui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ cr¨¦dit¨¦s par erreur sur son compte et auxquels elle n'avait pas droit ; ii) n'ayant pas respect¨¦ un jugement rendu par la Haute Cour de Zambie (jugement de la Haute Cour), qui lui ordonnait de restituer les fonds susmentionn¨¦s ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU ; et iii) ayant pr¨¦sent¨¦ de faux documents et/ou d¨¦form¨¦ les...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que les performances de l'ancienne fonctionnaire n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦valu¨¦es de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et objective. Il a constat¨¦ qu'elle savait que son accord de t¨¦l¨¦travail ¨¦tait temporaire et qu'elle s'¨¦tait n¨¦anmoins pr¨¦sent¨¦e ¨¤ son lieu d'affectation aux Fidji quelques mois plus tard seulement. Il a soulign¨¦ que son retard dans la demande de paiement d'une indemnit¨¦ forfaitaire de voyage et dans la demande de visa pour sa m¨¨re ne justifiait pas son absence de pr¨¦sentation en temps voulu. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ que, pour ¨¦valuer...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'aucune des raisons invoqu¨¦es par M. Hejab, consid¨¦r¨¦es individuellement ou collectivement, n'¨¦tait suffisamment convaincante pour consid¨¦rer son cas comme exceptionnel, de mani¨¨re ¨¤ justifier l'octroi d'une indemnisation sup¨¦rieure ¨¤ celle pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'article 10(5) du Statut du personnel temporaire de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas inhabituel pour un membre du personnel plus ?g¨¦, en particulier celui qui est proche de la retraite, d'avoir des difficult¨¦s ¨¤ trouver un autre emploi. De m¨ºme, bien que les conditions ¨¦conomiques soient difficiles l¨¤ o¨´ il vit, ce n...

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF avait men¨¦ le processus de s¨¦lection dans le respect total de son cadre juridique administratif, notamment en fournissant des motifs d¨¦taill¨¦s pour justifier le rejet de la candidature du fonctionnaire. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que sa candidature avait fait l'objet d'un examen complet et ¨¦quitable et qu'il n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦, ¨¤ l'aide d'¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve clairs et convaincants, qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ priv¨¦ d'une chance ¨¦quitable d'¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve de partialit¨¦ ou de mauvaise intention ¨¤ son ¨¦gard.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fait...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly explained away...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that it had been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member committed serious misconduct by: i) failing to return to the United Nations Federal Credit Union (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) funds of USD 587,428.65 that were erroneously credited to her account and to which she was not entitled; ii) failing to comply with a judgment issued by the High Court of Zambia (High Court Judgment), which ordered her to return the aforementioned funds to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU; and iii) submitting false documentation and/or misrepresenting facts during the investigation conducted by the Office...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member¡¯s performance rating ¡°C ¨C Partially meets expectations¡± constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of ¡°Partially meets expectations¡± justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the...