±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. for having, on 21 May 2020, while in a United Nations vehicle clearly visible from a public street in Tel Aviv, Israel, held a female individual closely to his body while she was seated on his lap facing him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner; these events were captured in an 18-second video-clip, which was widely disseminated, bringing the Organization into disrepute (count one);

b. for failure to cooperate with the OIOS investigations by refusing to provide OIOS with the contact details of a material witness...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. Permitting a female individual (¡°F01¡±), who was not a United Nations personnel and who did not receive prior authorization for United Nations transport, to be transported in the vehicle, enabling the behaviour of Mr. Antoine, the rear passenger of the United Nations vehicle, who held F01 closely to his body while she was seated on top of him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner, while Mr. Antoine held F01 with his hand on her buttock and while he pulled her genital area closer to his crotch. These events...

The right of the Applicant to a correct level of classification of the post and a fair level of pay derives from the effective functions performed in the years, always the same at least from 2018, functions which - according to the acknowledgement of the Administration itself - correspond to the FS-5 level.

The Applicant is entitled to a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the...

Decisions of ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.

The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant¡¯s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.

Merits

In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.

The Tribunal examined the evidence on...

The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings.The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she ¡°also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter¡±.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations...

The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.

Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.

In this case, the facts were established and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed fraud on purpose.

The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounted to a breach of his basic obligations under staff regulations 1.2(b) and (g), staff rule 1.2(i), and the Strategic Framework for the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the Applicant acted with knowledge and intent to mislead (and even with a possible personal economic interest).

Given the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the sanction is not absurd, unreasonable, or...

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant damages equivalent to three months¡¯ net base salary at the P-3 level. The compensation shall bear interest at the United States of America prime rate with effect from the date this Judgment becomes executable until payment of said compensation. An additional five per cent shall be applied to the United States of America prime rate 60 days from the date the Judgment becomes executable.

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 15 November 2021 against the ineligibility to the education grant for French nationals residing in neighbouring France and serving in Geneva was time- barred. As such, this aspect of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case, the 22 September 2021 Administration¡¯s denial of the Applicant¡¯s 2020/2021 education grant claim constitutes a new administrative decision. As such, the 60-day deadline for requesting management evaluation of this decision started to run from 22 September...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested selection decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in selecting the selected candidate.

±¬ÁÏÍø, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.

This duty of protection applies not only to physical disease, but also to psychological disease.

This implies a duty to intervene promptly to protect the staff member, at risk for his/her health.

it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant¡¯s pathology was related to the work environment and therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the ABCC unduly...

Rescission and in lieu compensation under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute

Considering that the evidence provided by the Respondent showed that the duration of most of the former renewals of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment including the last regular renewal was for a duration of one year and that there is no expectation of renewal for a fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal determined that the amount of in lieu compensation must be equal to one year¡¯s net base salary.

Compensation for harm under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute

The Tribunal reviewed the...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant¡¯s performance was rated as either ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± or ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± since 2015, except for one cycle in which she ¡°fully met¡± expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...