51ÁÔÆæ

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 Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that UNRWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of UNDT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.

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.

A very basic tenet of due process in a disciplinary case is that each of the relevant facts and allegations of misconduct must be presented to the accused person in such manner that s/he can easily understand them and is thereby afforded a fair and just opportunity to defend herself/himself. If not, the Administration cannot subsequently sanction a staff member against the backdrop of any such fact and/or allegation (in line herewith, see ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process), in particular para. 8.3). Further, this is a matter of access to justice...

Not only is it the duty of every member of the United Nations personnel to cooperate with the Internal Justice System, but also it is particularly important for senior leaders of the Organization to lead by example. There is no evidence that a selection decision had been made in the first selection exercise before it was cancelled. The cancellation was based on facts supported by evidence and, therefore, it was lawful. The Applicant¡¯s allegations of ulterior motive have no bearing on the decision to cancel the first selection process because the reasons given were lawful. The Applicant¡¯s claim...

Staff rule 4.9(a) provides that inter-organization movements shall be governed by an inter-organization agreement, and UN Women agreed to release the Applicant on secondment in accordance with the Inter-Organization Agreement. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the Inter-Organization Agreement apply in this case. Under the Inter-Organization Agreement, the Applicant had the rights of employment upon her return from secondment, which means that she had the right and the obligation to resume work at UN Women upon return from her secondment. Such rights were not respected when she was forced...

It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb ¡°shall¡± is used (b) that for ¡°review and discussion¡±, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before¡ªand not after¡ªany selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the ¡°recommended¡± male candidate is ¡°clearly superior¡± to any...

The contested decision fell within the Administration¡¯s margin of appreciation and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. Under the applicable legal framework, the Applicant is not entitled to force the Administration to investigate her complaint. To the contrary, the responsible official is provided with a discretion to initiate or not to initiate an investigation under the applicable legal framework. The decisionmaker reasonably decided not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint in light of the alleged harasser¡¯s resignation. The decision was also procedurally compliant as the...

The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed ¡°after¡± she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR¡¯s comments in relation to the Applicant¡¯s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three ¡°off the record¡± emails with the journalist and it was the...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.