±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.

In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ¡®sexual molestation¡¯, constitute ¡®serious misconduct¡¯ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.

Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.

Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.

Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

It consistently follows from AA¡¯s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant¡¯s many texts on the proposed ¡°bet¡± that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: ¡°Still on that topic man?¡±; ¡°I value my dignity more than $2.000¡±; ¡°I do not bet¡±; ¡°I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my ±¬ÁÏÍøFCU account and that is it¡±; ¡°The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over¡±. Despite this...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

Merits

The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also determined that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The Tribunal held:

1. The Applicant repeatedly engaged in attempts of corruption by requesting money from at least six refugees in exchange for promising ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR services that should have been provided without charge. As a consequence, the decision to dismiss the Applicant was lawful.

2. The facts which the Applicant was accused of were proved in a consistent and unequivocal manner, and the Respondent fulfilled his burden to prove that the Applicant took bribes from some refuges, or at least that she asked for them.

3. The disciplinary measure was not based solely on anonymous statements...

The Tribunal DECIDES to deny the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.