±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly explained away...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency¡¯s job classification tool had been used to reclassify the staff members¡¯ posts. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred when it had decided the case in the absence of the full document of the International Civil Service Commission¡¯s ¡°Master Standard for Classification¡±. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Classification Reports were relevant and sufficient for the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s determinations.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that notwithstanding the various anomalies in the reclassification process, the staff members had failed to show anything specific that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in an Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor on appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no basis to overturn the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...