51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant¡¯s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...

The record demonstrated that the Applicant refused to complete her supervisees¡¯ performance evaluation and delayed the contract extension process. The Applicant refused to perform key managerial functions.

While it may be true that she was not given an opportunity to explain her actions, the remedies under section 10.1 ST/AI/2010/5 are only aimed at rectifying performance short comings and are not punitive. It was therefore not necessary to conduct some form of investigation in which a staff member would be required to explain her actions.

While the Applicant had a duty and a right to...

While, arguably, changing the title of a position may carry the same effect as abolishing it, the two actions are not synonymous under the UNHCR legal framework. Since ¡°discontinuance/abolition of post¡± and ¡°change of position title¡± are separately provided for under the UNHCR New Resource Allocation Framework (UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1), it follows that they are independent of each other. Indeed, the above provision has explanatory language indicating that ¡°discontinuance of a post¡± is ¡°same as abolition of a post defined in the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations¡±. No such...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in acts affecting two staff members, namely V01 and V02. The Tribunal thus held that the facts on which the sanction was based were clearly established.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards V01 and V02 was (i) unwelcome, (ii) of a sexual nature, and (iii) they might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation. Further, his conduct interfered with their work and/or created for them an intimidating, hostile...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...

The UNDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the UNDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the UNDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

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

The application is dismissed.

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant¡¯s performance was rated as either ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± or ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± since 2015, except for one cycle in which she ¡°fully met¡± expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...