51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability: the Applicant could not separately challenge the decisions to abolish his post and to create a new one. This does not mean that the Applicant, while contesting his separation from service, cannot raise arguments touching upon prefatory steps taken in the process leading to such decision and which contributed to it. The need for the Tribunal to go beyond the examination of the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is particularly acute in the present case, where the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s ARR(O) post and to create a new one cannot be dissociated from the...

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment

The Tribunal found that there were no good reasons to depart from the principle of renewal pending completion of a rebuttal process. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s performance was not fairly evaluated, notably during the third and fourth evaluation cycles. Thus, these performance appraisals could not be relied upon to justify a decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. As a consequence, the Tribunal found that the third reason for not renewing the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely that she...

Background for the examination of the issues in this case

The Tribunal found that the wayin which the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (¡°OAIS¡±) conducted its investigation clearly led to great unfairness to the Applicant given the circumstances of this case.

Financial loss to UNFPA

Since a pivotal part of the scope of the investigation was to establish financial loss to the Organization and or financial benefit to the Applicant as a result of the UNFPA leases, it was surprising for the Tribunal to note that there was no certain finding of the actual financial loss that UNFPA...

The Tribunal found that a witness¡¯ evidence on all matters totally lacked credibility and due to its conflicting nature was at best unreliable. The different versions of the facts were entirely contradictory. In such a situation the Tribunal has no course other than to totally exclude all evidence from the witness as lacking any probative value. The testimony presented and heard by the Tribunal does not prove, at the required standard, that the charge of collusion in fraud or gross negligence against the Applicant was made out. The Respondent had the burden of proof, which he did not discharge...

The management evaluation rescinds the 25 September 2019 decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint of abuse of authority. Therefore, in application of Crotty, the Applicant¡¯s request for an order directing UNICEF 51ÁÔÆæ its obligations with respect to the complaint is not receivable. The Tribunal notes that as the 25 September 2019 decision was rescinded, further actions or inactions taken following the 7 November 2019 decision constitute fresh administrative decisions, actual or implied. Therefore, in application of art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Applicant must...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager¡¯s actions has been rebutted and that...

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...