51�Թ�

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving “by clear and convincing evidence” in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that “it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity” (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

In its findings, the Tribunal found that the evidence in support of the charges was credible and that the Applicant failed to prove that the decision to summarily dismiss him was arbitrary or motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularities or error of law. With regards to the Applicant’s allegations of breach of due process, the Tribunal could not find any evidence that the rights of the Applicant had been violated. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Respondent discharged his burden of proof and that he made proper use of his discretion.

The UNDT found that the Panel on Discrimination and other Grievances, which was the body mandated to investigate the Applicant’s complaint, failed to act expeditiously in bringing the Applicant’s case to conclusion, finish its investigation, and issue its final report, as required by ST/AI/308/Rev.1. The UNDT found that the Organization failed to properly address the Applicant’s complaint of harassment and discrimination and was thus in breach of the Applicant’s contract. The UNDT found that the Applicant did not prove that any actual economic loss warranting compensation was caused to him...

The Tribunal finds no flaws in the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. It further finds, based on its assessment of the intern’s credibility and on the evidence available, that the facts have been established. It also concludes that they qualify as misconduct, even though the Respondent erroneously relied on ST/SGB/2008/5; the latter was indeed issued on 11 February 2008 and was therefore not applicable at the time of the misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal, recalling the Secretary-General’s discretion in disciplinary matters and considering the circumstances of the case, finds...

There was no evidence that established that the work place had become intimidating, hostile or offensive for the Complainant. The charge of sexual harassment cannot be sustained in the circumstances to the extent that the Complainant was a willing participant in sex talks in emails, via telephone, via text messages and in person. While it is recognised that a rebuttable presumption of law or fact may exist where a certain set of facts are present, there is definitely no room for making a legal finding based on presumptions about what would likely be the case in a given situation. It is a trite...

The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration’s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related...

The UNDT found that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was wrongful. Assault: A charge of assault is a criminal charge and it was not within UNICEF competence to investigate a criminal offence or a tort alleged to have been committed. Identification of staff members: The Tribunal took judicial notice of the fact that when an international staff member finds him or herself facing an imminent threat of physical harm or is placed in some other peculiar position especially in a foreign country, it is reasonable to identify oneself as a UN Staff Member. Sexual harassment: It is unusual...

Obligation to take action under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Administration’s obligation to take prompt and concrete action under section 5.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5 is not limited to formal complaints or reports but also extends to “allegations” of prohibited conduct. Scope of application of ST/SGB/2008/5: Comments made in the context of a staff member’s performance appraisal could in some circumstances fall under ST/SGB/2008/5. For example, harsh criticism unsupported by examples or the use of offensive language could constitute improper conduct that might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant’s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant’s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS’ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Tribunal held that the decision to appoint a staff member to the post of Director/RIITD off the roster without consideration of the other candidates (including the Applicant) who had applied to the post was unlawful. It failed to give the Applicant full and fair consideration for the post and denied him due process. Roster based selection: The Tribunal noted that the General Assembly resolutions on human resources management reiterate the principle of transparency in the selection process and the need for vacancies to be advertised and held that there is no transparency in a process that...