±¬ÁÏÍø

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

/

The Applicant¡¯s roster membership did not give her a right to appointment to FS-5 positions and did not give her a right to be placed against available positions on a priority and non-competitive basis. The Organization has no obligation to assist a staff member affected by downsizing to obtain a non-competitive promotion. The Administration¡¯s obligation is to make proper, reasonable, and good faith efforts to assist the Applicant in finding an alternative post at her level or at a lower grade but not at a higher level.

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01¡¯s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant¡¯s handling of V01¡¯s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

Although not constitutive...

The administrative decision to close a staff member¡¯s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

The deadline for the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant¡¯s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (±¬ÁÏÍøDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration¡¯s appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was given ¡°too many tasks too fast¡± as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that the...