�鶹��ý

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...

UNDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

UNDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. UNDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. UNDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. UNDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...

The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant’s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant’s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s...

The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and UNICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.

The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one’s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (“UNAT”) in Haq and Kane 2019-UNAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...

The Applicant’s complaints were remanded once more to the Respondent for a proper investigation in compliance with the regulatory framework. The Respondent is to provide the Applicant with a copy of her interview transcript and summary (if any) prepared by outside provider and used in the prior investigation.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation on 24 July 2019 was time-barred, and thus the present application is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant’s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant’s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant’s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available...