±¬ÁÏÍø

A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01¡¯s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant¡¯s handling of V01¡¯s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

Although not constitutive...

The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Secretary-General appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between ±¬ÁÏÍøDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration¡¯s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

The administrative decision to close a staff member¡¯s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration¡¯s appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was given ¡°too many tasks too fast¡± as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that the...

The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (±¬ÁÏÍøDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no ruling on this...

The Tribunal found a number of the Applicant's claims to not be receievable. The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the refusal of the Applicant's request to extend her time telecommuting was that the Applicant¡¯s role as a child protection officer needed presence on the ground and that telecommuting was not appropriate for the functions of her role. The Applicant did not have a medical exemption to telecommute. The record showed that the reason was true and that the Applicant was afforded the same discretion as other members of her team. The Tribunal therefore found no indication of...

The investigation successfully established that the Applicant engaged in workplace harassment in seven different occasions against the three complainants. By committing workplace harassment, the Applicant breached the highest standards of integrity and engaged in behaviour unbecoming of an international civil servant. As such, her conduct constitutes serious misconduct. However, the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant was found to be too harsh of a penalty lin light of the Administration¡¯s past disciplinary measures on other cases of comparable conduct, as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2021/030.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant¡¯s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...

The burden of proving the provenance and authenticity of the footage is on the Respondent. The Tribunal found that the challenge as to the evidentiary value of the video can properly be dismissed, given the type of document (a video file), its content (a continuous show of people interacting with no discrepancies) and the comments on it by the Applicant (as mentioned). The Tribunal found that a forensic examination of the files was not necessary and that the anonymity of the sources did not undermine its clear and objective content. In this case, the Applicant was not simply careless to have...

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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did he point out any...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT shared the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

While it is...