±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s claims of fraudulent manipulation of his electronic leave records failed for want of proof.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by leaving crucial factual issues unresolved, which made it impossible to determine the appeal fully. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the tables summarizing the staff member¡¯s sick leave records were not hearsay but qualified as business records entitled to a presumption of accuracy unless rebutted. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that these records were accurate and noted unresolved inconsistencies. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further...

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the factors required to be considered in the disciplinary context. This included : the past practice of the Organization in comparable matters, the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was accidental, careless, reckless, or deliberate; whether the staff member followed procedures and was self-aware of the conduct; whether, given the staff member¡¯s experience, the misconduct was minor, substantive, or severe; the risk of damage to the Organization and staff; as well as any mitigating factors.

The...

While regrettably there is neither an eyewitness to the physical assault in question nor any security camera that could have captured the assault on video, the complainant provided, under oath, a detailed and coherent account of the physical assault in question, the circumstances leading to it and its aftermath. His account of the physical assault and subsequent events is corroborated by other witnesses¡¯ testimonies, the documentary evidence and/or the Applicant¡¯s contemporaneous behaviour, i.e., his attempt to bring some soft drinks to the complainant a few hours after the physical assault...

The challenge against the decision to place the Applicant on a PIP and the outcome of the review of MEU of the contested decisions is not receivable.

The Administration failed to respect the procedural standards expected from the United Nations in proceedings leading to the imposition of a written reprimand. The above-mentioned deficiencies raise doubts about the appearance of impartiality of the investigation and the decision-making process and are thus sufficient to taint the contested decision. Accordingly, the Administration¡¯s decision to issue to the Applicant a written reprimand and...

Having reviewed all the factors used in determining the appropriate sanction for the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the USG/DMSPC has provided sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and has established a rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action.

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

The Notice and its placement in the Applicant¡¯s personnel file Noting that the decision at issue is a written reprimand imposed to address a staff member¡¯s unsatisfactory conduct following an investigation of an altercation, the Tribunal considers that the decision at issue constitutes an administrative measure under sec. 2.1(d) of ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The fact that a reprimand is not a disciplinary measure ¡°does not mean that a reprimand does not have legal consequences, which are to the detriment of its addressee, especially...

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based have been established There is evidence that the Applicant improperly interfered with the recruitment exercise for the position of LSA Sulaymaniyah. Also, the Applicant does not dispute the fact that he did not report potential misconduct on the part of his supervisor. Accordingly, the Administration has established to the requisite standard of proof the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based. Whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct The Administration correctly determined that:

a. By moving Mr. D...