±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings had been based on credible evidence when it determined that the staff member¡¯s son had contracted Covid-19; he had been treated under the supervision of her primary medical care provider; and payment had been made based on invoices from that provider reflecting the care he had provided.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that in light of the testimony of the staff member¡¯s witnesses, including herself and the medical professional who had treated her son, it had not been erroneous for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to conclude that the Administration had failed to establish the medical...

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization¡¯s ¡°zero-tolerance¡± policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± but ¡°reasonable grounds to believe¡±, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender parity had not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

In any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization¡¯s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...