±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.

Regarding the disciplinary measure, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis of the applicable legal framework governing the education grant, specifically the costs admissible for reimbursement, had been erroneous and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its jurisdiction when it found the promulgation of the amended administrative instruction unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to provide the reasons, facts and law on which it had based its Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fees which were clearly intended to cover extra-curricular activities or general non-academic services, and were not intended to cover administrative...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that her ±¬ÁÏÍø experience was used to disadvantage her. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also...

The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that ¡°published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.¡± Even if names were within the ambit of ¡°personal data¡±, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...