±¬ÁÏÍø

The issue of disclosing an investigation report is not new. It was, in fact, considered by this Tribunal in its judgments Adorma ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/205 and Haydar ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/201 as well as by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in judgment Ivanov 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-519. In the latter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT entered into consideration of the non-disclosure of an investigation report despite the fact that the Secretary-General had questioned the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction over such a decision. The Organisation¡¯s obligations as stipulated in ST/SGB/2008/5 are an integral part of a staff member¡¯s contractual rights. They include the obligations of the Organisation and...

It was reasonable for the responsible official to determine that the status and management of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF is a legitimate subject of concern to staff at large and therefore comments made by staff representatives about the management of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF concern work-related issues. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that staff rule 8.1(f) entitles staff representative bodies to effective participation in identifying, examining and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies. It also was reasonable for the...

By not seeking the Medical Director¡¯s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant¡¯s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant¡¯s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.

The information in the documents on record pointed to purely work-related disagreements between the Applicant and her supervisor. The Tribunal rejected the complaint that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s Deputy Executive Director, Management (DED/M) did not take into consideration the facts in their entirety and misunderstood her statements when conducting the management evaluation. The Tribunal agreed with the finding that there was no evidence of abuse of authority or deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the Applicant¡¯s supervisor. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not raise any impropriety...

Staff members are entitled to due process in relation to their complaints, not to a particular finding against another staff member or to a particular decision by the Organization towards another staff member. The Applicant¡¯s claims have all been comprehensively addressed by the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, and the Applicant failed to establish a basis for which further remedies should be granted. The application is rejected in its entirety.

- The contested decision is receivable because it affected the Applicant¡¯s conditions of employment, and was the object of a timely management evaluation request. - There is no evidence on record that OAI¡¯s investigation of the complaints against the Applicant was mishandled. In the circumstences surrounding the investigation, there were no unreasonable decisions made which were contrary to OAI¡¯s Investigation Guidelines. The Applicant had his opportunity to refute all the allegations made, to question the circumstances and motivation behind the allegations, which he did. OAI¡¯s decision that...

Receivability The Applicant did not request management evaluation of the following contested decisions: 1) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action in relation to her complaint; 2) Undue delays in the investigation, in the initiation and conducting of a disciplinary process, and in taking the final decision on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against her former supervisors; and 3) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action to protect her from sexual harassment in her workplace environment and to remedy the harm suffered. Moreover, the Tribunal is not...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...