±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant physically assaulted another staff member and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant¡¯s misconduct. Importantly, the Appellant did not establish a degree of provocation that mitigated her retaliation which was also excessive and beyond the bounds of any permissible defense in the altercation.

The findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the staff member against her former supervisors (FRO and SRO) led to investigations whose reports were the basis for disciplinary processes and sanctions against both persons, as well as an additional administrative measure against her former SRO. The Administration acted promptly, when unofficially informed of the wrongdoing, by placing the staff member on certified sick leave for approximately two months, before reassigning her at her request to a new workplace. The letter informing her of the action taken also contained the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a ¡°decision¡±. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...

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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT order requesting information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant¡¯s...

The allegations in the Applicant¡¯s complaint squarely [fell] in the realm of workplace disagreements about the normal exercise of managerial authority. Section 1.1 of ST/SGB/2019/8 states that ¡°[d]isagreement on work performance or on other work-related issues is normally not considered prohibited conduct and is not dealt with under the provisions of the present bulletin but in the context of performance management¡±. The responsible official¡¯s conclusion that it was unlikely that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case (section 5.5...