51ÁÔÆæ

It was crucial for the Tribunal to examine the relationship between the Applicant and the alleged victim of his behaviour. There was clear evidence of constant financial support to the complainant/victim. The Applicant built a relationship of trust with the complainant/victimthe where she was able to rely on him for support and was comfortable to meet with him outside of the UNFPA Malawi Country Office. The victim was placed in a very vulnerable position. The abuse by the Applicant was not an isolated episode, as the Applicant is accused also for sexual assault and harassment in different...

The Tribunal found that the use of the investigation report was not subject to the confidentiality agreement between the parties; it was an autonomous document, which was lawfully used in court. The decision did not constitute a disciplinary measure. It was taken pending the completion of the disciplinary process and was without prejudice to the Applicant¡¯s rights. More than one circumstance warranting the placement of the staff member on ALWP occurred. The Applicant could be dismissed or separated from service with the United Nations for breach of the duty of trust and confidence, in...

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

The Applicant¡¯s post termination correspondence seeking to clarify what his terminal benefits would be, his eventual receipt of a statement of payments on 20 September 2021 and the filing of a new MER on 27 October 2021 reiterating the points previously made and decided on by the MEU did not re-set the time for the filing of the application. The Applicant waited approximately seven months after receiving the June 2021 MEU response, which addressed his submissions about entitlement to termination indemnity, before filing the application. The application was therefore outside the permitted 90...

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a ¡°staff member¡±. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant¡¯s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

The Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.

The Applicant was sanctioned for engaging in two types of misconduct: (i) sexually exploiting V01, and (ii) engaging in a misrepresentation to the Organization and a misappropriation of assets from the Organization regarding Family Emergency Leave from 22 until 27 July 2019. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; regarding the first sanction of sexually exploiting V01, the Tribunal concluded that based on the finding that the Applicant was aware of V01¡¯s vulnerability, the evidence that he continued to have sexual intercourse with her even at times when she had...