Ãå±±½ûµØ

- The contested decision is receivable because it affected the Applicant’s conditions of employment, and was the object of a timely management evaluation request. - There is no evidence on record that OAI’s investigation of the complaints against the Applicant was mishandled. In the circumstences surrounding the investigation, there were no unreasonable decisions made which were contrary to OAI’s Investigation Guidelines. The Applicant had his opportunity to refute all the allegations made, to question the circumstances and motivation behind the allegations, which he did. OAI’s decision that...

Receivability The Applicant did not request management evaluation of the following contested decisions: 1) The Administration’s failure to take appropriate action in relation to her complaint; 2) Undue delays in the investigation, in the initiation and conducting of a disciplinary process, and in taking the final decision on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against her former supervisors; and 3) The Administration’s failure to take appropriate action to protect her from sexual harassment in her workplace environment and to remedy the harm suffered. Moreover, the Tribunal is not...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties’ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties’ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Applicant cannot claim that the Administration had initiated a disciplinary process against her. The Applicant had no right to force the Administration to complete a disciplinary process against her. The Administration decided to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process in relation to the Applicant should she be employed with the Organization in the future. Therefore, as in Kennes, the Applicant’s due process rights have not been violated. The note placed in the Applicant's Official Status File is merely informative in nature and does therefore have no impact on the...

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization’s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...

The Applicant has no right to the Administration’s blanket acceptance of his account of events, nor to the imposition of sanctions against another staff member without due process. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant’s complaint was reviewed in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Applicant did not present a prima facie case of harassment as the claims were unsubstantiated and she did not provide adequate proof to support them. The facts did not amount to misconduct or prohibited conduct. The conduct the Applicant alleged even if true, was not harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Consequently, the Administration had a legitimate basis not to proceed with an investigation into these matters. The Applicant did not proffer any evidence to...

Scope of judicial review The Applicant only challenged the dismissal of his complaint against his FRO and SRO by way of management evaluation. Recalling the general requirement of staff rule 11.2(a), the Tribunal will limit its scope of judicial review to the decision not to investigate the Applicant’s complaint against his FRO and SRO. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against the MEU’s responses to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. Therefore, it will not adjudicate the Applicant’s arguments against the MEU’s responses to his request for management...

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established With respect to Count One, the Tribunal finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant did not disclose his spouse’s and his father in law’s involvement with two UNICEF implementing partners, of which the Applicant was the responsible Programme Manager on behalf of UNICEF. In his application, the Applicant does not dispute this fact either. Turning to Count Two, the Tribunal is convinced that the Applicant received a spouse dependency allowance to which he was not entitled. Moreover, the...