51ÁÔÆæ

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found the testimony of each of the Respondent¡¯s witnesses to be credible and the testimony of the Applicant to be not worthy of belief. Based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment, harassment, and abuse of...

The Dispute Tribunal had no record of any case filed by the Applicant ever having been transferred to it from JDC when the new system of internal justice at the United Nations took force in July 2009.

Taking into consideration the Applicant¡¯s subsequent failure to pursue the claim for over 12 years, and the absence of any record of a case transferred to it, the Tribunal does not consider itself seized of the application filed in 2007, before the JDC.

Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable.

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may suspend the implementation of a contested administrative decision pending management evaluation if the Applicant demonstrates that: The decision appears prima facie unlawful, The matter is of particular urgency, and Implementation would cause irreparable harm. These requirements are cumulative, meaning all three must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. In this case, the record indicated that the Applicant¡¯s temporary contract had been extended until 11 March 2024...

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis.

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...

The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member¡¯s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal found no procedural flaws in the procedure adopted to investigate and impose the disciplinary action taken.

The Tribunal determined that the application should be denied since the misconduct committed by the Applicant was very serious and there were no mitigating factors. The Applicant refused to supply relevant information even though she knew that it was known that she had a sister working in the Organization.

The disciplinary measure imposed was therefore proportionate and fairly imposed, with full opportunity to respond to questions asked and clarify answers, if necessary.

Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her.

Whereas the Applicant¡¯s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...

The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days¡¯ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.

The UNAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the UNAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The UNAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was ¡°detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation¡±. Second, by arguing that ¡°she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority¡± and ¡°rehabilitate¡± her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...