Search
There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator’s finding of “prior conduct” were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant’s...
The decision to have the Applicant consent to an Independent Medical Evaluation ("IME") was reasonably taken in the interest of the Organization.
The Tribunal held that there was no unlawful behavior by UNHCR in following and implementing the recommendations arising from the IME. The decision was rational, procedurally correct and appropriate.
On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found the testimony of each of the Respondent’s witnesses to be credible and the testimony of the Applicant to be not worthy of belief. Based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed.
Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment, harassment, and abuse of...
Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis.
In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.
To the extent that the Applicant received...
The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member’s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant’s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.
The Tribunal found no procedural flaws in the procedure adopted to investigate and impose the disciplinary action taken.
The Tribunal determined that the application should be denied since the misconduct committed by the Applicant was very serious and there were no mitigating factors. The Applicant refused to supply relevant information even though she knew that it was known that she had a sister working in the Organization.
The disciplinary measure imposed was therefore proportionate and fairly imposed, with full opportunity to respond to questions asked and clarify answers, if necessary.
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...
The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.
Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days’ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.
Since the ABCC was advised by a technical body its decision does not require management evaluation.
The Tribunal determined that the application was properly made but it was denied because the Tribunal could find no fault with the decision of the ABBC to deny the Applicant's claim for an entitlement to compensation for injury and illness incurred during and resulting from employment on the behalf of the United Nations.
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.
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 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 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 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...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the requisite standard to rebut the presumption that the restructuring was genuine and therefore a valid reason for not renewing her FTA.
Receivability
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant’s request for management evaluation and found that only the decision not to consider him eligible for a temporary appointment through the Talent Pool, at the P-2 level, was receivable and subject to judicial review. Any other decision to which the Applicant referred in his submissions was consequently not receivable.
Merits
The Tribunal referred to the applicable legal framework as well as to the evidence on record and noted that the practice is to only consider experience at the G-6 level and above (or equivalent experience outside of the UN...
The Tribunal was unpersuaded by the Applicant’s claim that his participation in the Staff Day activities was “essentially private conduct not involving [United Nations] resources” or that this was “essentially a voluntary, social event”. The requirements for integrity, probity, honesty and truthfulness under the staff regulations and staff rules are not merely “generic obligations” but are specifically intended to apply “in all matters affecting [a staff member’s] work and status”. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the established facts in this case amount to misconduct on the part of...
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...
Mr. Ronved appealed.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.  The contested decision before the UNDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the UNDT.  The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.  Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...
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...