����AV

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.

Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in entitlement fraud and received reimbursement for medical services that had not occurred. He falsely certified and submitted three Cigna claims; for which he was paid a total of USD17,171.26. He was not entitled to this reimbursement. As UNDP is self-insured, these funds represented a loss to UNDP.

The Applicant’s behaviour fell within what the UNDP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices (approved in October 2018) defines as fraud. The established facts constituted misconduct.

As to proportionality of the...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna were not authentic. The Tribunal held that this was enough to substantiate the accusation that the Applicant used false documents to receive improper and undue economic benefits from Cigna. The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in misconduct through his submission of a fraudulent...

The UNAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a “decision”. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The UNAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...

UNAT noted that the only issue on appeal was the issue of appropriate compensation for the unlawful contested decision.  UNAT found that the UNDT appropriately found that the requested compensation in the amount of two years’ net base salary was unwarranted as it would exceed the emoluments to which he would have been entitled absent the unlawful termination. UNAT found no merit in Mr. Kilauri’s contention that the UNDT failed to consider the nature and level of the post he formerly occupied and the chances of renewal beyond the expiry of his fixed-term contract but for his unlawful...

Ms. Specker appealed. The UNAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate.  The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The UNAT noted that Ms. Specker’s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases.  The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the UNDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. UNAT found that the UNDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the UNDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the UNDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the process leading to the imposition of the disciplinary measure was carried out in compliance with the UNDP Legal Framework for Addressing non-compliance with United Nations Standards of Conduct and the UNDP Office of Audit and Investigation Guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not deny or even challenge the fact that the Respondent had proved that she had: i...