The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.
The motion is ill-founded and dismissed.
The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.
However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.
On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...
The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01’s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01’s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01’s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.
However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...
The United Nations, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.
This duty of protection applies not only to physical disease, but also to psychological disease.
This implies a duty to intervene promptly to protect the staff member, at risk for his/her health.
it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant’s pathology was related to the work environment and therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the ABCC unduly...
With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the UNDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel “influenced” by them.
The UNAT also denied the Secretary-General’s...
The UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.
The UNAT found that the UNDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member’s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.
The UNAT noted that the UNDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when UNICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...
The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The UNAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The UNAT found that the staff member’s due...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant’s official status file and UNICEF’s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s former appointment.
The Tribunal reviewed the application and found it not receivable. The Applicant indicated in his application that while he was initially offered a separation indemnity of 12 months’ net base salary, this amount was later reduced to three months’ net base salary in a separation agreement dated 16 March 2021. According to the information on record, the Chief Human Resources Office, Pakistan Country Office, verbally informed the Applicant of the contested decision on 11 March 2021. Therefore, as per staff rule 11.2 (c), the Applicant had until 10 May 2021 to request management evaluation. Even...
