����AV

The Tribunal concluded that the relevant decisions to fast track the transition of the Applicant's post to Senior Gender Officer were fair, just and transparent.

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline. 

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant’s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the UNEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration’s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., “a review of the review”. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report and recommendations...

A lack of cooperation is not always a relevant circumstance in every case to be taken as aggravating factor. Sometimes, if the lack of cooperation is not serious, it may not be taken as an aggravating circumstance. However, the nature of the case may affect how lack of cooperation during an investigation is viewed. Being dishonest and misleading during the investigation may be considered serious and be taken as a ground of aggravation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a lack of cooperation can never be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

While the Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly...

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant’s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary “administrative action” would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent’s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent’s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...