±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by ±¬ÁÏÍø Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that ±¬ÁÏÍø Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how ±¬ÁÏÍø Women...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hunt, in coordination with colleagues, was covertly communicating with a news media reporter on the Investment Fund transaction, the approval process, and the former Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG)¡¯s role and had thereby leaked information to the reporter.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Hunt failed to prove that his action of reporting possible misconduct within ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF to outside sources was a protected activity under the Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin on protection against retaliation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, ¡°OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action¡±.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said¡¯s Official Status File. In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not a procedural error.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

Mr. Bwalya appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to refer the ED of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...