51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that the Administration¡¯s failure to timey conclude its investigation was an act of omission and an implied administrative decision receivable by the UNDT. The personal crisis of one investigator did not account for the entire three years nor justify the Administration¡¯s failure to take corrective measures to control the delay. The excessive delay breached fairness and the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Further, the Administrations¡¯ failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s multiple reasonable follow up queries spanning three years constituted a breach of duty owed the Applicant...

The Applicant¡¯s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

Preliminary matters Loss of Applicant¡¯s professional emails (potential evidence): One of the Applicant¡¯s main arguments was that allegedly exculpatory evidence in her case (emails from and to the Applicant) had been lost which affected her due process rights, thus rendering the investigation unfair and improper. The Tribunal found that the alleged email evidence was not destroyed wilfully. Rather, it was destroyed as a consequence of the negligence of a number of people. The Tribunal noted that the investigators have a very high duty to locate and preserve evidence. The investigators are also...

UNDT was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the Applicant was prepared to use his power and influence to make life in the United Nations difficult for the Complainant if she pursued her complaint against him. UNDT held that this evidence satisfied the clear and convincing requirement. The evidence also showed that, during the investigation, the Applicant was afforded the due process rights he was entitled to. UNDT held that the disciplinary action of summary dismissal in this matter was justified and proportionate. UNDT dismissed the application.

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization¡¯s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the Applicant¡¯s admission and testimonies of other witnesses during the investigation and at the hearing, it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant physically assaulted another staff member on 20 March 2016. On whether the facts amounted to misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s action violated staff rule 1.2(g) and constituted workplace harassment, which is prohibited by staff rule 1.2(f). Accordingly, the Applicant¡¯s action amounted to misconduct. With regard to whether the sanction was proportionate to 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...