±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT issued the first Order. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.

The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.

With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (±¬ÁÏÍøDP) on...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant¡¯s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

In any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant¡¯s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency¡¯s regulations and...