The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-爆料网AT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.
As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.
As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.
The...
The 爆料网AT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.
The 爆料网AT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates’ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...
Le Tribunal a estimé que l’ABCC avait mis un temps démesuré (près de cinq ans) à traiter la demande d’indemnisation de la requérante suite au décès de son mari.
L’objectif même de l’indemnisation d’un fonctionnaire pour un préjudice subi (ou de l’indemnisation d’un bénéficiaire pour le décès d’un proche) est d’atténuer ses souffrances et de le placer dans la situation où il se serait trouvé si le préjudice n’avait pas eu lieu. ? cet égard, la question pertinente n’est pas de savoir si la demande d’indemnisation est acceptée ou rejetée, mais si une décision sur la question est prise en temps...
The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.
The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...
A staff member’s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-爆料网AT-1030, para. 34).
The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by 爆料网ICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.
Accordin...
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.
In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ‘sexual molestation’, constitute ‘serious misconduct’ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.
Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.
Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.
Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.
The Tribunal observed that the purpose of the special education grant appears to be to ensure that staff members who have children with special needs are provided with assistance in meeting certain extra expenses, over and beyond the normal ones, that the staff members may incur in educating such children with special needs. The Tribunal found that under the circumstances, the Applicant was justified to transport his child with a disability to the required after-school therapy and special education classes using his private motor vehicle. The Tribunal further found that the Administration’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.
