Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reclassification request was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL and not by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that ST/SGB/2003/13 imposes a requirement of ¡°undue advantage¡± for sexual exploitation to occur. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the former staff member abused the position of vulnerability of V01 for sexual purposes (i.e., engaging in at least four acts of sexual intercourse), which constitutes sexual exploitation and abuse. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT itself acknowledged that V01, allegedly a minor, was vulnerable and less powerful than the former staff member, and that his actions had a sexual connotation. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant¡¯s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent¡¯s request for an award of costs.

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said¡¯s Official Status File. In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead¡¯s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the former staff member¡¯s knowledge that he was in a prohibited family relationship with another staff member, Mr. S.R.B.

Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if the information provided by the former staff member was false, he could not have intended to mislead the Organization by providing or omitting it. On the contrary, the evidence established that when he made his relevant applications, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Mr. S.R.B. was employed by the United Nations. In...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent¡¯s fees.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, Mr. Lago¡¯s reliance on additional evidence without filing a motion, was inadmissible.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, there was no evidence that a specific request for an occupational health evaluation, made by Mr. Lago, in an individual capacity to an appropriate official, was refused or ignored. Additionally, Mr. Lago¡¯s requests mirrored his persistent attempts to challenge a perceived wrong, which on its own cannot be perceived as an implied administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of a clear request capable of giving rise to an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the factors required to be considered in the disciplinary context. This included : the past practice of the Organization in comparable matters, the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was accidental, careless, reckless, or deliberate; whether the staff member followed procedures and was self-aware of the conduct; whether, given the staff member¡¯s experience, the misconduct was minor, substantive, or severe; the risk of damage to the Organization and staff; as well as any mitigating factors.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member¡¯s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application and his management evaluation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the lawfulness of the...