±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have rescinded the Administration¡¯s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by applying the improper legal framework, the relevant legal framework not being ST/SGB/2008/5, but the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Disciplinary Framework and the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Harassment Policy. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, being one of the separately administered funds of the Organization, has its own legal framework and is not regulated by the Secretariat¡¯s general administrative issuances such as ST/SGB/2008/5, unless otherwise stated or unless it has expressly accepted their applicability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that Mr. Toson¡¯s request...

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 dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

It was crucial for the Tribunal to examine the relationship between the Applicant and the alleged victim of his behaviour. There was clear evidence of constant financial support to the complainant/victim. The Applicant built a relationship of trust with the complainant/victimthe where she was able to rely on him for support and was comfortable to meet with him outside of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Malawi Country Office. The victim was placed in a very vulnerable position. The abuse by the Applicant was not an isolated episode, as the Applicant is accused also for sexual assault and harassment in different...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization¡¯s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization¡¯s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the...

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.

In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the ±¬ÁÏÍø or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the ±¬ÁÏÍø, nor was the Organisation aware of the...