¹ú²úAV

La d¨¦cision de licencier le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. L'administration a l¨¦galement entrepris la proc¨¦dure de licenciement pour abandon de poste en vertu de la disposition 9.6(b) du R¨¨glement du personnel. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que, compte tenu du contexte des absences prolong¨¦es non autoris¨¦es de la requ¨¦rante, ainsi que de son inaction et de son incapacit¨¦ ¨¤ r¨¦pondre aux diverses communications de l'Administration, y compris la demande de fournir la preuve requise que son absence ¨¦tait involontaire et caus¨¦e par des forces ind¨¦pendantes de sa volont¨¦ avant le 9 mai 2023, l'Administration a...

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant¡¯s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration¡¯s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

Compte tenu de l'absence de preuves directes devant le Tribunal, la victime pr¨¦sum¨¦e ayant refus¨¦ de t¨¦moigner, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le d¨¦fendeur n'avait pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ prouver de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante, ni m¨ºme de mani¨¨re pr¨¦pond¨¦rante, les all¨¦gations factuelles ayant conduit ¨¤ la conclusion de l'USG/DMSPC selon laquelle le requ¨¦rant l'avait harcel¨¦e sexuellement. Dans le m¨ºme ordre d'id¨¦es, la partie d¨¦fenderesse n'a pas non plus d¨¦montr¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant avait cr¨¦¨¦ un environnement de travail hostile pour elle. 

Bien que les actions et le comportement du requ¨¦rant n'aient pas...

Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her. 

Whereas the Applicant¡¯s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...

L'instruction ST/AI/2020/5 ne s'applique qu'aux d¨¦cisions de s¨¦lection prises ¨¤ partir (a) d'une ? liste de candidats ? qui a ¨¦t¨¦ ? approuv¨¦e par un organe central de contr?le ? ou (b) d'une liste de candidats ¨¤ un concours. Aucune de ces situations ne s'applique en l'esp¨¨ce. Il est incontest¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection contest¨¦e ¨¦tait r¨¦gie par l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Syst¨¨me de s¨¦lection du personnel), dont la section 3.1 dispose que ? [l]a d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection doit ¨ºtre prise sur la base d'une liste de candidats ?. 3.1 pr¨¦voit que ? [l]a proc¨¦dure de s¨¦lection et...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) ¡°a list of candidates¡± that was ¡°endorsed by a central review body¡± or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that ¡°[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction¡±. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant s'¨¦tait livr¨¦ ¨¤ de multiples actions qui constituaient des fautes graves. Par cons¨¦quent, sa conduite a non seulement montr¨¦ un manquement grave aux normes minimales d'int¨¦grit¨¦ conf¨¦r¨¦es ¨¤ un fonctionnaire international, mais elle a ¨¦galement montr¨¦ un m¨¦pris flagrant des r¨¨gles de l'Organisation. La conduite du requ¨¦rant a sap¨¦ la confiance que l'UNICEF avait plac¨¦e en lui. Cette confiance est essentielle ¨¤ la poursuite d'une relation de travail. Dans ces circonstances, le Tribunal a consid¨¦r¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait appropri¨¦ pour l'UNICEF de mettre fin ¨¤ sa...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by UNICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for UNICEF to end...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande n'¨¦tait pas recevable en ce qui concerne les cinq d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es dans la demande du requ¨¦rant. Le Tribunal a constat¨¦, entre autres, que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion d'une d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ou que l'¨¦valuation de la gestion du requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait prescrite. En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n¡ã 5, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae parce que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas clairement identifi¨¦ une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible d'¨ºtre r¨¦examin¨¦e. 

The Tribunal found that the application was  not receivable in respect to the five contested decsions in the Applicant's application. The Tribunal found that, inter alia,  the Applicant failed either to request management evaluation of a contested decision or because the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation was time barred. With respect to contested decision 5, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant had failed to clearly identify a reviewable administrative decision. 

Le Tribunal constate que, par la r¨¦f¨¦rence explicite et directe de la requ¨¦rante ¨¤ son affaire ant¨¦rieure de 2021, que l¡¯administration a tranch¨¦e en se r¨¦f¨¦rant ¨¤ la disposition 12.3(b) du R¨¨glement du personnel, elle a ¨¦galement, au moins implicitement, demand¨¦ une d¨¦rogation au R¨¨glement du personnel en vertu de la disposition 12.3(b) dans sa demande du 18 juillet 2022.

Si l¡¯administration avait eu des doutes quant ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦tendue de la demande de la requ¨¦rante, qui ¨¦tait effectivement formul¨¦e de mani¨¨re peu claire, elle aurait pu simplement s¡¯adresser ¨¤ la requ¨¦rante, qui, dans sa demande du...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request. 

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

Le Tribunal estime que la requ¨ºte n¡¯est pas recevable ratione materiae parce que le requ¨¦rant, de son propre aveu, n¡¯a pas demand¨¦ l¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des d¨¦cisions attaqu¨¦es.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant, by his own admission, failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions. 

Le candidat ¨¦tait tenu d'agir avec un minimum de probit¨¦, d'impartialit¨¦, d'¨¦quit¨¦, d'honn¨ºtet¨¦ et de sinc¨¦rit¨¦, comme l'exigeaient les faits ¨¦tablis (article 1.2(b) du Statut du personnel). En outre, s'il s'av¨¨re qu'un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts r¨¦el ou possible d¨¦coule de ces faits, le requ¨¦rant est tenu de divulguer ce conflit ¨¤ son chef de service afin de permettre ¨¤ l'UNVMC d'en att¨¦nuer l'impact et de le r¨¦soudre au mieux de ses int¨¦r¨ºts (article 1.2(m) du Statut du personnel). Enfin, si l'implication du requ¨¦rant dans une affaire pouvait entra?ner un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts r¨¦el ou potentiel selon...

Compte tenu des circonstances, le recours le plus appropri¨¦ serait d'annuler la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e (¨¤ titre de comparaison, voir les d¨¦cisions du Tribunal d'appel dans les affaires Lucchini 2021-UNAT-1121 et Rolli 2023-UNAT-1346).

La pratique courante et la courtoisie au sein de l'Organisation veulent que, bien que les engagements de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e, par d¨¦finition, ne comportent pas d'esp¨¦rance de renouvellement en vertu de la disposition 4.13(c) du R¨¨glement du personnel, un membre du personnel dont l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e ne doit pas ¨ºtre renouvel¨¦ re?oive une notification...

The Applicant was under the obligation to act with a minimum level of probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness as required by the established facts (staff regulation 1.2(b)). Also, if it is found that an actual or possible conflict of interest arose out of these facts, the Applicant was obliged to disclose this conflict to his head of office in order to allow UNVMC to mitigate its impact and resolve it in accordance with its own best interests (staff regulation 1.2(m)). Finally, if the Applicant¡¯s involvement in a matter could result in an actual or potential conflict of...

Considering the circumstances, the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind the contested decision (in comparison, see the Appeals Tribunal in Lucchini 2021-UNAT-1121 and Rolli 2023-UNAT-1346).

It is standard practice and courtesy in the Organization that, albeit fixed-term appointments, per definition, do not carry any expectancy of renewal under staff rule 4.13(c), a staff member whose fixed-term appointment is not to be renewed is to receive a pre-notification concerning the non-extension, at least 30 days before its expiry. The Respondent has not argued or submitted any documentation...

Dans le cadre de la d¨¦finition de la fraude, le Tribunal a observ¨¦ que la question du propre b¨¦n¨¦fice de la requ¨¦rante n'est pas un ¨¦l¨¦ment n¨¦cessaire pour ¨¦tablir une conclusion de fraude. Au contraire, s'il est ¨¦tabli que, par une fausse d¨¦claration, elle a intentionnellement tromp¨¦ les journ¨¦es du personnel de 2017 et 2018 et que cela a effectivement ou potentiellement caus¨¦ un pr¨¦judice aux journ¨¦es du personnel de 2017 et 2018, cet ¨¦l¨¦ment est suffisant.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que, dans les circonstances donn¨¦es, l'administration a agi dans le cadre de son autorit¨¦ en concluant que la...

Under the definition of fraud, the Tribunal observed that the question of the Applicant¡¯s own benefit is not a required element to establish a finding of fraud. Rather, if found that by a misrepresentation, she intentionally deceived the 2017 and 2018 Staff Days and this actually or potentially caused prejudice to the 2017 and 2018 Staff Days, this is adequate.

The Tribunal found that, in the given circumstances, the Administration acted within the scope of its authority when finding that the Applicant had committed fraud. Accordingly, as per Asghar: (a) the Applicant misrepresented the...