�山����

The Applicant admitted that he printed work-related emails, lost them, and failed to report the incident. He only contested the Administration’s determination that the information contained in the printed emails was confidential, but the Tribunal found that in light of the nature of the contents in the emails the Administration reasonably considered them to be confidential. Considering that loss of confidential information could have serious ramifications, it was appropriate to conclude that the Applicant acted with gross negligence when he lost emails and did not report the incident. The...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicants were misled in that they were not clearly informed, despite their inquiry, that their non-participation in the written test would be taken into consideration in the evaluation of their candidacies. Thus, the Administration violated its duty to act transparently and in good faith with the Applicants. The Tribunal finds that the Administration cannot reasonably take into consideration the performance of a staff member in separate recruitment exercises, even less so when such exercises took place several years prior. The performance in prior selection...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section. The Ethics...

While DD refused to give testimony to the Tribunal, and not being a United Nations staff member is not obliged to do so, this does not by itself render his interview statement inadmissible or otherwise invalid.; The Tribunal notes that the crux of the present case is whether the comments and proposals of the Applicant were of inappropriate sexual nature, or if instead, they simply concerned the security and safety of the premises or otherwise were nothing but jokes and lighthearted remarks.; As the Tribunal rejected all the Applicant’s submissions regarding the facts not having been...