±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Modey-Ebi. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the issues in the appeal were entirely factual, most of which were resolved on the evidentiary record which in most respects established a pattern of misconduct justifying dismissal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while some of the proven allegations against Ms. Modey-Ebi were less serious than others, cumulatively they revealed a pattern of unethical conduct indicating that Ms. Modey-Ebi was not suited for the senior position she held. Her behaviour revealed a lack of propriety and integrity and her behaviour was inconsistent with her duties under...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the sanction of...

Given the modest level of compensation that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded to Ms. Malhotra and its non-payment since 20 November 2020, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT awarded interest on the 3-month net base salary calculated at the US prime rate from 20 November 2020 to the date of payment.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...

Whether the decision was prejudiced, arbitrary and based on abuse of authority and improper motives: Apart from one letter in which he complained bitterly about the leadership of the CMS, the Applicant did not lead any evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal found this claim to be without merit Whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy/legitimate expectation of renewal: Pursuant to ST/AI/404, mission detail, as any other assignment in the Organization, is at the discretion of the Secretary-General. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Respondent were not of such a...

The applicant did not have a legitimate expectancy of renewal. No express promise by the Administration could be found. Had there been one, the letters of appointment signed by the applicant explicitly state that fixed-term appointments do not carry any expectancy of renewal. No promise could override the clear words of the letters of appointment signed subsequently. It cannot be stated that the non-renewal decision was based on improper motives or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. The Organization was not bound to give any justification for not extending the applicant¡¯s fixed-term...

Outcome: The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal finds no flaws in the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. It further finds, based on its assessment of the intern¡¯s credibility and on the evidence available, that the facts have been established. It also concludes that they qualify as misconduct, even though the Respondent erroneously relied on ST/SGB/2008/5; the latter was indeed issued on 11 February 2008 and was therefore not applicable at the time of the misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal, recalling the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary matters and considering the circumstances of the case, finds...

There was no evidence that established that the work place had become intimidating, hostile or offensive for the Complainant. The charge of sexual harassment cannot be sustained in the circumstances to the extent that the Complainant was a willing participant in sex talks in emails, via telephone, via text messages and in person. While it is recognised that a rebuttable presumption of law or fact may exist where a certain set of facts are present, there is definitely no room for making a legal finding based on presumptions about what would likely be the case in a given situation. It is a trite...