51ÁÔÆæ

The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that ¡°published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.¡± Even if names were within the ambit of ¡°personal data¡±, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que l¡¯ABCC avait mis un temps d¨¦mesur¨¦ (pr¨¨s de cinq ans) ¨¤ traiter la demande d¡¯indemnisation de la requ¨¦rante suite au d¨¦c¨¨s de son mari.

L¡¯objectif m¨ºme de l¡¯indemnisation d¡¯un fonctionnaire pour un pr¨¦judice subi (ou de l¡¯indemnisation d¡¯un b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire pour le d¨¦c¨¨s d¡¯un proche) est d¡¯att¨¦nuer ses souffrances et de le placer dans la situation o¨´ il se serait trouv¨¦ si le pr¨¦judice n¡¯avait pas eu lieu. ? cet ¨¦gard, la question pertinente n¡¯est pas de savoir si la demande d¡¯indemnisation est accept¨¦e ou rejet¨¦e, mais si une d¨¦cision sur la question est prise en temps...

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.

Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.

Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.

The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (¡°OIAI¡±) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, UNICEF¡¯s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant¡¯s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Compensation in lieu is ¡°not related at all to the economic loss suffered¡± (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization¡¯s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).

The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...

The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.

The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...