�鶹��ý

As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman’s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

The Applicant’s appeal against the decision to place her on administrative leave is not receivable since she failed to file a request for management evaluation as required. The Tribunal found that on the preponderance of the evidence, the Administration failed to demonstrate that the Applicant shouted at two staff members as charged. It was only established that the Applicant “expressed irritation” toward one staff member and she “lost her cool” and “spoke sharply” to another staff member. The Tribunal found that these behavior did not amount to harassment or abuse of authority and thus did...

The fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately—it was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration’s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant’s misrepresentations, including the...

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 concludes that the contested decision, lawful or not, does not result from a disciplinary process and is therefore not exempted from management evaluation. Accordingly, in application of staff rule 11.2, the Applicant ought to have requested management evaluation before filing his appeal before this Tribunal. Having failed to do so, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

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...

UNDT held that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. UNDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. UNDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...