Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait commis aucune erreur de fait ni de droit en concluant que le comportement de la fonctionnaire constituait une faute grave.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait examin¨¦ les explications fournies par la fonctionnaire concernant les erreurs commises lors de la pr¨¦sentation des demandes de subvention pour l¡¯¨¦ducation sp¨¦cialis¨¦e, mais qu¡¯il s¡¯¨¦tait prononc¨¦ contre elle en se fondant sur son ¨¦valuation de son manque de cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que ses conjectures quant aux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve qu¡¯un t¨¦moin potentiel aurait pu apporter relevaient de la simple...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯une partie de la demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction formul¨¦e par la fonctionnaire ne semblait pas avoir ¨¦t¨¦ prise en compte par le TDNU. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les informations figurant dans le formulaire type MER constituaient une demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es, y compris le non-respect d¡¯une promesse pr¨¦sum¨¦e de maintenir son emploi en garantissant le financement de son poste pendant une p¨¦riode donn¨¦e. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait suffisamment soulev¨¦ les questions relatives ¨¤ la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la suppression de son poste et de la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de clore l¡¯enqu¨ºte sur la plainte d¨¦pos¨¦e par l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a jug¨¦ que le r¨¦cit de l¡¯incident au cours duquel B se serait frott¨¦ contre elle
constituait un cas ambigu de harc¨¨lement sexuel, et qu¡¯il appartenait donc ¨¤ l¡¯enqu¨ºteur et ¨¤ la personne charg¨¦e de prendre la
d¨¦cision de conclure que les ¨¦l¨¦ments de l¡¯affaire n¡¯¨¦taient pas suffisamment solides pour engager des poursuites contre B. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre estim¨¦ que les deux autres incidents invoqu¨¦s par l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e ¨C...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a tout d¡¯abord pr¨¦cis¨¦ que le recours ne visait pas la deuxi¨¨me sanction, l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire n¡¯ayant pas form¨¦ de recours contre celle-ci dans les d¨¦lais impartis, mais visait plut?t ¨¤ garantir l¡¯exactitude de son dossier personnel aupr¨¨s des Nations Unies. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Administration avait commis une erreur en s¡¯appuyant sur les conclusions disciplinaires
ant¨¦rieures et les premi¨¨res sanctions pour d¨¦terminer la deuxi¨¨me sanction. Elle a estim¨¦ que, lorsque l¡¯Administration a examin¨¦ et d¨¦cid¨¦ de la deuxi¨¨me sanction, elle avait connaissance, ou devait ¨ºtre...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the decision to close the investigation into the former staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful.It found that the account of the incident in which B allegedly rubbed against her presented an equivocal case of sexual harassment, and that it was therefore open to the investigator and to the decision-maker to conclude that the case was of insufficient strength to pursue against B.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the two other incidents invoked by the former staff member ¨C B allegedly walking to her side in a corridor and offering her to drink...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first clarified that the appeal was not directed against the second sanction, given the former staff member¡¯s failure to appeal that sanction in a timely manner, but rather concerned ensuring that his personal records with the United Nations were accurate.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration¡¯s reliance on the previous disciplinary findings and first sanctions in determining the second sanction was erroneous. It held that when the Administration considered and decided the second sanction, the former staff member¡¯s pending Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT appeal regarding the first sanctions...