ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first claim, the Tribunal held that pursuant to staff rule 6.2 the entitlement to sick leave does not follow a cycle calculated since the date of appointment as argued by the Applicant, but, rather, is calculated pursuant to its own cycle determined by the date of the sick leave. The Tribunal thus concluded that the method used by the administration to calculate the Applicant's sick leave days was consistent with staff rule 6.2, while the method advocated by the Applicant was not. Accordingly, the application failed on the score of sick leave. On the Applicant¡¯s...

The Applicant was not notified of any indebtedness to the Organization or called upon to settle it, as required by ST/AI/155/Rev.2. The initial withholding did not have the required authorization in the USG/Management¡¯s decision; rather, it was applied in an arbitrary and obscure fashion, with the Applicant learning of it only by the fact that the pension was not forthcoming. It was apparent that, starting with the irregularity of not informing the Applicant of the withholding decision for two months following his separation, the Administration had not seriously undertaken to establish either...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was contesting an MEU response, which is not an appealable administrative decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. With regard to ratione temporis, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 31 May 2019. She then ought to have requested management evaluation by 30 July 2019. She however, submitted her request on 30 December 2019, five months late, and outside the 60-day period. The Tribunal thus held that her request for management evaluation was time-barred and therefore, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not competent to...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the Applicant¡¯s admission and testimonies of other witnesses during the investigation and at the hearing, it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant physically assaulted another staff member on 20 March 2016. On whether the facts amounted to misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s action violated staff rule 1.2(g) and constituted workplace harassment, which is prohibited by staff rule 1.2(f). Accordingly, the Applicant¡¯s action amounted to misconduct. With regard to whether the sanction was proportionate to the...

The Tribunal found that there was clear and convincing evidence that on the morning of 9 February 2015, at his office, the Applicant commited misconduct. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct, in violation of the norms consistently upheld by the Organization since at minimum 1992, where sexual harassment was described as unacceptable behaviour for the staff of the United Nations, and reiterated through, among other, outlawing, in 2003, sexual exploitation and abuse as serious misconduct warranting a summary dismissal, and through a detailed anti-harassment and abuse of authority...

UNDT found that on the date of the issuance of the disciplinary measure, as well as on the date when it was received by the Applicant, she remained subject to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which allow for the imposition of disciplinary measures. UNDT held that the facts of the case demonstrate that the Applicant¡¯s actions were undertaken in a conflict of interest in violation of staff regulation 1.2(m). The actions also demonstrate lack of integrity in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b), which requires staff members to ¡°[¡­] uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and...

The Tribunal found that clear and convincing evidence was obtained which was consistent with the Applicant¡¯s sexually exploiting local women and the impugned decision was well-founded. The Applicant had claimed that he had given his username and password to other staff members therefore, he could not be attributed the accessing and storing of the material. The Tribunal did accept this. The Applicant admitted that he had downloaded and installed the cracked software that had caused pornographic material to appear on his computer. He neither named any person with whom he shared the password nor...