±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

In this case, the facts were established and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed fraud on purpose.

The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounted to a breach of his basic obligations under staff regulations 1.2(b) and (g), staff rule 1.2(i), and the Strategic Framework for the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the Applicant acted with knowledge and intent to mislead (and even with a possible personal economic interest).

Given the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the sanction is not absurd, unreasonable, or...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused ±¬ÁÏÍøDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. Permitting a female individual (¡°F01¡±), who was not a United Nations personnel and who did not receive prior authorization for United Nations transport, to be transported in the vehicle, enabling the behaviour of Mr. Antoine, the rear passenger of the United Nations vehicle, who held F01 closely to his body while she was seated on top of him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner, while Mr. Antoine held F01 with his hand on her buttock and while he pulled her genital area closer to his crotch. These events...

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant physically assaulted another staff member and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant¡¯s misconduct. Importantly, the Appellant did not establish a degree of provocation that mitigated her retaliation which was also excessive and beyond the bounds of any permissible defense in the altercation.

The findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s due...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Dispute Tribunal correctly reasoned that under the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT order requesting information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

Ms. Specker appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate. The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms. Specker¡¯s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases. The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...