±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to ¡°direct negotiations¡± being underway; ¡°with the Respondent in this matter¡±, but failed to...

Respondent¡¯s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent¡¯s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent¡¯s motion.

Where evidence is capable of establishing a likelihood of a connection between potentially extraneous considerations and a failure to obtain a renewal of a contract, summary dismissal is unlikely to be warranted. Where one party raises sufficient material suggesting a particular fact or facts and the other party has the sole means of refuting that inference, then an evidentiary burden to call that evidence will ordinarily arise so that a failure to do so will make it relatively easy for the other party to treat the fact as proven. Outcome: The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, without...

The applicant was given the opportunity of providing arguments and submissions which may tend to show that he had an arguable case. He has failed to do so. There was ample evidence before the Secretary-General to support a finding of serious misconduct. The internal disciplinary investigations complied with the principles of natural justice. There were no procedural irregularities in the investigation and the sanction of summarily dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered the applicant to show cause why his appeal against dismissal should not be struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to respond. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the order to show cause was properly served on the applicant and that SIU¡¯s investigation produced clear evidence establishing the facts supporting the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that there was no procedural irregularity, improper motive, or abuse of power, and that the sanction of summary dismissal was a fair and proportionate response. Outcome: The application was struck out in its...

±¬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...