±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the weight of the evidence, in that case, justified the decision taken by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, while acknowledging the importance of confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, that due process did not always require that a staff member defending himself against disciplinary action for summary dismissal had the right to confront and cross-examine his/her accusers. Under certain circumstances, denial of this right did not necessarily fatally flaw the entire process, so long as it was established to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s satisfaction that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/034 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Perelli was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/106 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/192. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

On the delay before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the delay was unfort±¬ÁÏÍøATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the sanction of...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that Mr. Adriantseheno had been charged solely with sexual harassment, that his behavior towards Vo1 and Vo2 did not constitute sexual harassment, and that his due process rights were violated.