±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

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 Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found it not receivable. The Applicant indicated in his application that while he was initially offered a separation indemnity of 12 months¡¯ net base salary, this amount was later reduced to three months¡¯ net base salary in a separation agreement dated 16 March 2021. According to the information on record, the Chief Human Resources Office, Pakistan Country Office, verbally informed the Applicant of the contested decision on 11 March 2021. Therefore, as per staff rule 11.2 (c), the Applicant had until 10 May 2021 to request management evaluation. Even...

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established according to the applicable standard? It was alleged that during the Cox¡¯s Bazar all-staff retreat in February 2020, the Applicant: a. Grabbed V01 from behind her and held her tight with his hands around her waist to the front of her body. He rested his head on her back while he pulled her back so that the front of his body rested against the back of her body. V01 did not consent to him touching her; and b. Hugged V02 from the front side of her body with his body pressed against her body. He hugged her with both his...

The staff member¡¯s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the staff member¡¯s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56): ¡°¡­ By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant¡¯s personal dignity but also adversely...

The investigation successfully established that the Applicant engaged in workplace harassment in seven different occasions against the three complainants. By committing workplace harassment, the Applicant breached the highest standards of integrity and engaged in behaviour unbecoming of an international civil servant. As such, her conduct constitutes serious misconduct. However, the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant was found to be too harsh of a penalty lin light of the Administration¡¯s past disciplinary measures on other cases of comparable conduct, as...

The burden of proving the provenance and authenticity of the footage is on the Respondent. The Tribunal found that the challenge as to the evidentiary value of the video can properly be dismissed, given the type of document (a video file), its content (a continuous show of people interacting with no discrepancies) and the comments on it by the Applicant (as mentioned). The Tribunal found that a forensic examination of the files was not necessary and that the anonymity of the sources did not undermine its clear and objective content. In this case, the Applicant was not simply careless to have...

The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the Applicant commented adversely on V01¡¯s clothing during his visit to the National Committee. However, while acknowledging that the comments may have been out of line given that he had no supervisory role over the staff in the National Committee, the Tribunal does not find that evidence supports that this conduct had a sexual component. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant compared V01¡¯s age to his son while stating that he tried to avoid speaking to older women. The Tribunal is also satisfied...

The Tribunal held that staff members¡¯ obligations under staff regulations 1.2(a), (b) and (f) are not limited to the work environment but also apply in a certain way to their private lives. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted physical conduct of a sexual nature that might reasonably be excepted or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to the complainant. There was no doubt that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. The Tribunal found no grounds to review the level of the sanction imposed on the Applicant.