ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

The disciplinary decision was based on two allegations: first, that the staff member committed a physical assault during a domestic dispute; and second, that the staff member failed to immediately report an arrest and criminal proceedings to the Secretary?General, contrary to staff rule 1.5(d). Regarding the assault allegation, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and compelling. It relied on contemporaneous police records, a judicial order of protection identifying the staff member as the aggressor, photographic evidence of injury, consistent sworn statements obtained during the...

Receivability

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the challenge to the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post and terminate his continuing appointment was not receivable. It held that the only matter before it was the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s employment to cover his sick leave, but instead to terminate his appointment and separate him while he was on certified sick leave.

Merits

First, the Tribunal assessed whether the Applicant was on certified sick leave at the time of his separation on 31 December 2023.

Although sick leave was not formally recorded...

The Applicant's motion for interim measure is made in the context of a series of applications arising from decisions taken because of allegations of misconduct against the Applicant, which involved sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Such misconduct is recognized in the regulatory framework as of such gravity that it provides an exceptional basis for placing a staff member on ALWOP pending the conclusion of the investigation. The Applicant contends that, based on new information available, there is no longer any basis for a finding that there is a preponderance of evidence that he engaged in...

The Tribunal recalls that in his pending application, the Applicant contests the 1 December 2023 decision to place him on ALWOP. The Tribunal assessed the lawfulness of this decision in its consideration of the Applicant¡¯s 24 January 2024 application for suspension of action. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not prima facie unlawful. The Applicant argues that the decision-maker failed to consider all the evidence before him when deciding to extend his placement on ALWOP. This, however, could be relevant, at best, in an examination of the 20 August 2024 decision extending the...

The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant¡¯s circumstances and has no intention of jeopardizing his health in any way. At the same time, it considers the Applicant¡¯s active participation in the proceedings essential to ensuring the fair adjudication of his case. The Tribunal concurs with the Respondent¡¯s assertion that ¡°the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is contingent upon the individual exercising this right having a legitimate interest in initiating and sustaining legal action.¡± The Applicant voluntarily initiated these judicial proceedings and, as such, has a vested interest...

As indicated by the Respondent in his reply, the selected candidate signed the letter of appointment and assumed her functions on 19 June 2024. She further completed the onboarding formalities on 24 June 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it can no longer entertain the instant application, which was filed on 28 June 2024, thus after the contested decision has been implemented. Granting an injunction would require reversing the onboarding of the selected candidate, which it clearly cannot do.

An application for suspension of action can only be entertained under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal when the challenged contested decision is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation (see Onana 2010-UNAT-008, para. 19; Igbinedion 2011-UNAT-159, para. 20). In the present case, the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was no longer pending. The evidence showed that the Deputy High Commissioner completed the management evaluation on 27 June 2024, and that the Applicant received the outcome of his management evaluation request the same day. Consequently, as the management...

Since the management evaluation in this case has been completed, one of the cumulative and mandatory conditions specified in art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute is not fulfilled. The Tribunal will therefore not examine if the remaining statutory requirements have been met, as the matter now lies moot.

A decision made by the Duty Judge is not constantly open for entertainment until decided by the assigned Judge to a case. That would undermine the role of the Duty Judge and render precarious the principle of legal certainty. The principles of transparency and accountability apply to the entire internal justice system regardless of the facts under dispute, the charges of misconduct or the disciplinary measure applied, unless exceptional circumstances guide the Tribunal differently. Concerning exceptional circumstances, the principle of publicity can only be departed from where the applicant...

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may suspend the implementation of a contested administrative decision pending management evaluation if the Applicant demonstrates that: The decision appears prima facie unlawful, The matter is of particular urgency, and Implementation would cause irreparable harm. These requirements are cumulative, meaning all three must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. In this case, the record indicated that the Applicant¡¯s temporary contract had been extended until 11 March 2024...