±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that beyond reporting the possible prohibited conduct concerning non-compliance with the United Nations financial rules and regulations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the staff member had no further interest in law in the conduct of the investigation or its outcome. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there was no basis for his assertion that OIOS had declined to conduct an investigation into his report. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding the application concerning this decision not receivable.

Regarding the staff member¡¯s complaint of...

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 held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member had a duty to promptly disclose to ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA that she was under investigation when she resigned from Oxfam¨Ca fact that it considered relevant to her suitability for the position. It noted that the application form included a specific question about whether she resigned while under investigation, indicating her awareness of the Organisation¡¯s core values. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also emphasized that her letter of appointment stated that she was responsible for providing any required information during both the application process and subsequent employment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a ¡°detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.¡± In response, the USG/DMSPC writes¡°Recommendation approved.¡± The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

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 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.