±¬ÁÏÍø

The Respondent submitted that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis since the Application was filed more than three years after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the impugned administrative decision, however the Tribunal found the application to be receivable due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. Obligations under ST/AI/371: Under paragraph 24 of ST/AI/371/ it was the duty of the Applicant to file an appeal with the JDC within two months of the notification of the disciplinary measure meted out to him. Although the Applicant failed to submit a request for review of his...

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

Promulgation of MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15: The Tribunal observed that MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15 is of general application to the extent that it applies to all MONUSCO personnel but it was not expressly issued for the implementation of any specific rules or ST/SGBs. However, it does not meet the requirements of ST/SGB/2009/4. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the lack of promulgation of the AI does not of itself render the impugned decision null and void. Withdrawal of the Applicant¡¯s driving privileges: The Tribunal found that MONUSCO Administrative...

The disciplinary sanction was based on the finding that he had made a material misrepresentation on several personal history forms when applying for jobs. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that it has been established that on three occasions¡ªsometime in or around October 2011, on 25 March 2005 and on 21 February 2007¡ªthe Applicant¡¯s personal history forms incorrectly indicated he did not have ¡°relatives employed by a public international organization¡±, whereas his brother was in fact employed by the United Nations until 8 December 2008. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found, however, that the established facts did not amount to...

The Applicant, a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The sanction was based on a finding that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct when he left a hand-held radio and an MP5 9 mm submachine gun with two magazines and approximately 60 rounds of ammunition ±¬ÁÏÍøATtended in a ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle that he had been operating, resulting in these items being stolen when an unknown person or persons broke into that vehicle while the Applicant waited several minutes in a restaurant for a take-out meal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Tribunal found that the imposed sanction was not manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. It was within the...

N/A

The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/±¬ÁÏÍøAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/±¬ÁÏÍøAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before...

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the ±¬ÁÏÍøON Security and Safety Service (±¬ÁÏÍøON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the ±¬ÁÏÍøON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...