51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal reviewed the present application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis and ratione personae. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant clearly indicated in her application that the contested decision dated back to 2010 and, in such circumstances, her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the...

The evidence shows that the Applicant was never separated from the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s request to be placed on a post at the D-1 level post is therefore moot. The outcome of the complaint of harassment was not included in the management evaluation request as such complaint was, at the time, still under investigation. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that administrative decision because it was not reviewed by the management evaluation unit under art.8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Related

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2) Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant¡¯s complaint was reviewed in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Applicant did not present a prima facie case of harassment as the claims were unsubstantiated and she did not provide adequate proof to support them. The facts did not amount to misconduct or prohibited conduct. The conduct the Applicant alleged even if true, was not harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Consequently, the Administration had a legitimate basis not to proceed with an investigation into these matters. The Applicant did not proffer any evidence to...

The Tribunal acknowledges that the 120-day deadline for OIOS to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory. However, the Tribunal is of the view that a departure from this deadline has to be just. Given the circumstances of the case, even if the 120-day deadline to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the delays and unjustified attempts to suspend or terminate the investigation in this case constitute an egregious violation of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1. By not initiating its investigation in due course, OIOS rendered itself unable to...

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...

It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to evaluate the correctness of the contested decision but rather examine whether the Administration respected the bounds of its discretionary power in reaching it. While the Applicant alleged that evidence was ignored and that OIOS investigators were biased against him, he provided no detail in support of these assertions. Tribunal was satisfied that OIOS interviewed all relevant witnesses with respect to the incidents of alleged sexual misconduct and reviewed the available documentation. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the conclusion that the...

In sum, based on the record on file and the oral evidence provided at the hearing held on 12-14 October 2021, the Tribunal finds that it is established that the Applicant slapped MK on 25 November 2016 but the rest of the allegations by MK are not established. Since it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant slapped MK, the established facts amount to misconduct. Considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, mitigating circumstances that the Administration took into account, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable...