±¬ÁÏÍø

The investigation successfully established that the Applicant engaged in workplace harassment in seven different occasions against the three complainants. By committing workplace harassment, the Applicant breached the highest standards of integrity and engaged in behaviour unbecoming of an international civil servant. As such, her conduct constitutes serious misconduct. However, the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant was found to be too harsh of a penalty lin light of the Administration¡¯s past disciplinary measures on other cases of comparable conduct, as...

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...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration¡¯s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...