The Tribunal held that based on the available evidence, the Administration had demonstrated that all reasonable efforts were made to consider the Applicant for available suitable posts in keeping with staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post were made by the Organization and the Applicant did not find a suitable position before his separation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent’s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...
The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.
The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...
The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the UNDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the UNDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (UNDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and UNDP’s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...
Regarding the Applicant’s complaint of not being designated as OiC in absence of CSA, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had received such a decision in October 2018. The Applicant had not requested management evaluation in a timely manner pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal thus concluded that this decision, no matter how problematic it was, it fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. On the Applicant’s other complaint that he had been stripped of his functions and had been removed from several projects, the Tribunal considered the tasks performed by...
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...
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...
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...
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...
