�鶹��ý

Scope of judicial review The Applicant only challenged the dismissal of his complaint against his FRO and SRO by way of management evaluation. Recalling the general requirement of staff rule 11.2(a), the Tribunal will limit its scope of judicial review to the decision not to investigate the Applicant’s complaint against his FRO and SRO. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against the MEU’s responses to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. Therefore, it will not adjudicate the Applicant’s arguments against the MEU’s responses to his request for management...

The Tribunal acknowledges that the 120-day deadline for OIOS to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory. However, the Tribunal is of the view that a departure from this deadline has to be just. Given the circumstances of the case, even if the 120-day deadline to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the delays and unjustified attempts to suspend or terminate the investigation in this case constitute an egregious violation of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1. By not initiating its investigation in due course, OIOS rendered itself unable to...

The Tribunal found that V01 was a credible witness. Her testimony was taken independently, bearing in mind all the circumstances, and established the facts that sexual exploitation and abuse took place. The Tribunal found W01 a credible witness, her testimony relating to the first incident which she resolved informally with the Applicant was consistent with and corroborated V01’s testimony. The Applicant did not successfully discredit this testimony. The Tribunal found that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. The Applicant engaged in sexual...

Concerning the corrective measures: To the extent that the fact-finding panel’s investigation resulted in a finding of actions on the part of the Applicant that called for corrective measures in the form of training and counselling, the Respondent’s actions were procedurally proper. The cautionary corrective measure of providing training and counselling for the Applicant was appropriately taken in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5 in circumstances where, although there was no misconduct, the Applicant’s manner of performing his duties caused a staff member to feel harassed. Concerning the decision...

It follows from the case record that the reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s return-to-work plan on 13 May 2019 were only presented to the Applicant in the Respondent’s reply submitted by Counsel for the Respondent. This was evidently a procedural error. The scope of this irregularity was exacerbated by the statutory requirement of sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3, which demands “the manager … to establish that the requested accommodations represent a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace” (italics added). The Applicant’s manager was not Counsel for the Respondent before the Dispute...

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the UN, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

In making the final decision on the Applicants’ complaint, the then Director General, UNOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

UNDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of UNCTAD’s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. UNDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. UNDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the UN General Assembly. UNDT also...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...