Ãå±±½ûµØ

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.

The UNAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the UNDT was not a procedural error.

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred.  The UNAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The UNDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General.  Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the Ãå±±½ûµØand its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

The Applicant was found suitable for available positions. Indeed, for one job opening, he was one of the eight candidates short-listed and convoked to interview. By shortlisting him, the Administration tacitly acknowledged that he was deemed suitable for the position; per Timothy UNDT/2017/080, as a continuing appointment holder facing termination, the Administration was obliged from that point to consider his candidacy on a preferred, non-competitive basis.

The Tribunal found that the Administration failed in its obligation to make good faith efforts to absorb the Applicant into a new post...

The challenge against the decision to place the Applicant on a PIP and the outcome of the review of MEU of the contested decisions is not receivable.

The Administration failed to respect the procedural standards expected from the United Nations in proceedings leading to the imposition of a written reprimand. The above-mentioned deficiencies raise doubts about the appearance of impartiality of the investigation and the decision-making process and are thus sufficient to taint the contested decision. Accordingly, the Administration’s decision to issue to the Applicant a written reprimand and...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not dispute the fact that he did not request management evaluation within the 60-day statutory period of staff rule 11.2(c). He did not dispute the fact that while the 60-day period commenced on 25 January 2021, he mailed his request for management evaluation on 16 April 2021, more than three weeks after the expiration of the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, since the Applicant did not seek management evaluation in a timely manner, his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

The United Nations, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being. 

This duty of protection applies not only to physical disease, but also to psychological disease.

This implies a duty to intervene promptly to protect the staff member, at risk for his/her health. 

it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant’s pathology was related to the work environment and therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the ABCC unduly...

The issue was whether the Applicant was entitled to education grant for his son’s last year of a five-year degree program which includes two semesters (approximately one year) of no cost/no tuition co-operatives/internships.

The Tribunal held that since the Applicant's son was enrolled in his educational institution during years three and four of his programme, during which the co-op semesters were part of the curriculum, there was no basis not to count years three and four as school years. As these years entailed less expenses on account of tuition not being paid during the co-op semesters...