±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found problematic the fact that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.

The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.

The motion is ill-founded and dismissed.

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01¡¯s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01¡¯s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01¡¯s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

±¬ÁÏÍø, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.

This duty of protection applies not only to physical disease, but also to psychological disease.

This implies a duty to intervene promptly to protect the staff member, at risk for his/her health.

it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant¡¯s pathology was related to the work environment and therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the ABCC unduly...

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...