±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ammar made the Facebook post because the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) inappropriately discounted the possibility that Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account had been hacked. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration met its burden of establishing that it was highly probable that Mr. Ammar posted the Comment and thus publicly expressed support for an honour killing. The Administration produced uncontradicted evidence that the comment came from Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account and he...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Article 9(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the evidence before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was that the decision was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the transitional measure ¨C granting 10 weeks of special leave with full pay (SLWFP) only to mothers who were still on maternity leave on 1 January 2023 ¨C was not unlawfully discriminatory.

It found that, while it might be argued that preferring birth mothers over fathers in the transitional arrangements between the old and new parental leave regimes was discriminatory, it was not unlawfully discriminatory for two reasons: i) the desirability of breastfeeding in circumstances that are inconsistent with their mothers also working full...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

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 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...