Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Womens¡¯ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant, as a senior manager, was conferred a duty of care to promote a ¡°harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct¡± as per ST/SGB/2008/5, which she failed to do. The Applicant¡¯s actions, as established by the facts, constituted harassment and abuse of authority under ST/SGB/2008/5 and amounted to misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly pointed out that the only remedy requested by the staff member in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the rescission of the administrative decision not to transfer him. Only now on appeal does the staff member raise other claims and additionally requests payment of all salaries and benefits from the date of termination to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, including pension benefits and compensation for the material and moral harm inflicted on him, caused by harassment, mistreatment, and unlawful termination. His new requests on appeal cannot be accepted by the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB, holding that the ITLOS was not obliged to conclude the recruitment exercise once it had begun, and that it had the authority to cancel the process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned by the change to the recruitment procedure during the course of the contested recruitment, but could not discern how this affected Mr. Savadogo¡¯s candidacy. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the ITLOS JAB that Mr. Savadogo¡¯s allegations of bias against the Registrar in the recruitment were countered by the fact that the President of ITLOS made the significant decisions in the recruitment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed Mr. Mirella¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT evaluated Mr. Mirella¡¯s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Disciplinary Framework, the assessment of the facts of misconduct is not exclusive to OAIS, but that the Director of the Department of Human Resources (Director/DHR) must also analyze the evidence, and such analysis could lead DHR to a different conclusion than that of OAIS. Accordingly, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Administration had the authority or locus standi to proceed with a disciplinary process even in the absence of a finding of misconduct by OAIS. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected appellant¡¯s contention that because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...

A a holder of an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-¨¤-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms. Banyanga¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name ¡°Banyanga¡± did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga¡¯s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel ¡°influenced¡± by them.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...