����AV

Administrative leave; The Tribunal noted that the decision letter of 27 July 2017 conveyed that the decision was based on the reputational risk to the Organization in light of the allegations against the Applicant, relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an underage girl, and on the basis of the available evidence and findings of the investigation report.; The Tribunal was satisfied that the sensitive nature of the allegations, which were sustained by some evidence, justified the Administration’s decision, in its exercise of discretion, to put the Applicant on administrative leave, in order to avoid any reputational risk to the Organization. The Tribunal also considered that it was reasonable for the Organization to conclude that the reputational risk persisted despite the fact that the Applicant was no longer working in Ivory Coast at the time of the; contested decision. The Tribunal was thus satisfied that the Administration correctly exercised its discretion when it decided to place the Applicant on administrative leave.; Administrative leave without pay; The Tribunal noted that in light of the impact it has on a staff member, his or her placement on administrative leave without pay before the end of the disciplinary process is a measure that has to be used with particular caution, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the hardship ALWOP may imply for a staff member. It can only be applied if the Administration can indeed show that exceptional circumstances warranting such an extraordinary measure exist.; The Tribunal considered that not only was the evidence available at the time of the contested decision was taken insufficient to establish “probable cause”, that is, that there were facts of sufficient detail that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the alleged conduct occurred. As importantly, the Tribunal was of the view that under the legal provisions in force at the time, and in the absence of norms providing otherwise, the standard of proof to be applied to justify administrative leave without pay, for the purpose of staff rule 10.4(c), had to be similar to that of clear and convincing evidence, rather than “probable cause”. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the available evidence at the time of the contested decision was up to that standard.; Failure to take into account relevant considerations; The Tribunal concluded that the Administration, in its exercise of discretion, failed to give consideration to a relevant matter, that is that the Applicant, as an international staff member, had to pay for a living for him and his family in a foreign country, which was not his home country. The Tribunal noted that while he was ultimately allowed to travel to his home country (at his own cost), the record shows that prior thereto, the hardship placed on the Applicant by depriving him of a salary in a foreign country was given no consideration whatsoever.; Remedies; The decision of 27 July 2017 to place the Applicant on ALWOP was rescinded and its subsequent extension of 27 October 2017 was of no effect as it was predicated upon an illegal decision and was thus void ab initio. The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant his net base salary from 27 July 2017 until such time as he ceases to be on administrative leave as a consequence of the allegations against him.