As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.
As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.
The...
the Tribunal rules in favour of the Applicant, concluding that she acted in good faith in her efforts to secure her son’s medical treatment and in the subsequent submission of medical invoices for reimbursement.
The Tribunal finds that the contested decision terminating the Applicant’s employment, was, therefore, unlawful.
A witness investigator's act of following the testimony of a Respondent witness while she was testifying contravened the ethical and procedural standards expected of a witness by decision to disregard this fundamental procedural rule not only demonstrates a potential bias but...
The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that “published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.” Even if names were within the ambit of “personal data”, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...
The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.
The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.
In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ‘sexual molestation’, constitute ‘serious misconduct’ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.
Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.
Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.
Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.
It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).
The Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
It consistently follows from AA’s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant’s many texts on the proposed “bet” that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: “Still on that topic man?”; “I value my dignity more than $2.000”; “I do not bet”; “I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my UNFCU account and that is it”; “The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over”. Despite this...
Receivability
The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.
Merits
The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...
