51ÁÔÆæ

That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issue were therefore ruled inadmissible. The Tribunal held that the ALWOP decision was based on the criteria set out in section 11.4 b of ST/AI/2017/1. In the Tribunal¡¯s view, based on the nature of the allegations (the public engagement in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle in a heavily trafficked area of Tel...

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not offered any statement, or evidence, which would contradict the fundamental findings of the disciplinary process regarding the objective element of the impugned conduct, that is, that he made requests largely based upon incorrect information. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested the decision. The Tribunal also established that the Applicant acted in violation of staff regulations 1.2(b) and 1.2(q), and staff rule 1.7 and hence his actions amounted to...

The Applicant was sanctioned for: (a) misuse of UNICEF¡¯s ICT resources and (b) harassment and abuse of authority in relation to her treatment of some vendor employees. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established Since the Applicant does not dispute the underlying facts of the first charge (access of former personnel's ICT resources without authorization), the Tribunal finds that these facts have been established to the required standard. Regarding the second charge, the Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes the following facts: a. The Applicant...

The Tribunal concludes that the contested decision, lawful or not, does not result from a disciplinary process and is therefore not exempted from management evaluation. Accordingly, in application of staff rule 11.2, the Applicant ought to have requested management evaluation before filing his appeal before this Tribunal. Having failed to do so, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

On the issue of reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was reassigned to a position at the same grade and level commensurate with her skills and competencies. By Inter-Office-Memorandum dated 18 August 2020, the Under-Secretary-General for Operational Support (¡°USG/DOS¡±) reassigned the Applicant to another P-5 position, allowing her to maintain her grade, level and contract status. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant had not met her burden to show that the contested decision was ill-motivated or in bad faith. Mere assertions and innuendo were insufficient. On the...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable because it did not meet the conditions of an appealable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

The contested memorandum is not an administrative decision open to challenge as per the definition adopted by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision affecting her terms of employment and the contested memorandum concerns a general delegation of authority. Consequently, the application is rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.