51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization¡¯s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization¡¯s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the...

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration¡¯s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence supports the Hiring Manager¡¯s evaluation of the selected candidate¡¯s candidacy. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that it was within the Respondent¡¯s discretion to select the successful candidate. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that he had a significant chance of selection over the selected candidate, absent any of the procedural irregularities that he alleges.

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...

Receivability ratione materiae. The Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was not clear on whether he was making allegations of misconduct against his Supervisor, which would need to be dutifully investigated, or citing performance or management issues to be addressed by management. Similarly, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that the matter of lawfulness of the decision to place him on ALWP was ever formally contested by him. Hence, any determination against the decision not to further investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints of harassment against his supervisor or against his...

In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028, the Tribunal rejected the application in Case No. UNDT/NY/2021/023, finding that the Applicant is ineligible for boarding allowance for his child. In this case, the Applicant essentially challenges the same decision to find him ineligible for boarding allowance for his child, the issue of which was already resolved in Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028. Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal rejects the present application.

The burden of proving the provenance and authenticity of the footage is on the Respondent. The Tribunal found that the challenge as to the evidentiary value of the video can properly be dismissed, given the type of document (a video file), its content (a continuous show of people interacting with no discrepancies) and the comments on it by the Applicant (as mentioned). The Tribunal found that a forensic examination of the files was not necessary and that the anonymity of the sources did not undermine its clear and objective content. In this case, the Applicant was not simply careless to have...

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant was reckless in his failure to report a fraud which he was aware of. He chose to conceal and abet the perpetration of a fraud. The facts were established to the requisite standard by the Applicant¡¯s own admissions and the evidence on record. The Tribunal held that the established facts clearly constituted misconduct as charged. The elements of the charge of abetting and concealing fraud were established through the evidence. The Applicant who had possession of important knowledge about fraudulent document passing through his office...