�鶹��ý

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well‑substantiated and in line with the...

The application fails in its entirety.

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant’s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

The UNAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked UN vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within UNIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.

UNAT found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the contested decision not to initiate an investigation due to the resignation of her SRO was lawful as part of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Though the term “preliminary assessment” in ST/SGB/2019/8 was not specifically used in the contested decision, it was clear that Ms. Fosse’s complaint was preliminarily assessed before the decision was made that no investigation would be undertaken. While the previous Bulletin (ST/SGB/2008/5) may have been in force when she lodged her complaint and when it was the subject of a preliminary...

Mr. Pierre filed an appeal. UNAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable. The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre’s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour. UNAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...

The allegations in the Applicant’s complaint squarely [fell] in the realm of workplace disagreements about the normal exercise of managerial authority. Section 1.1 of ST/SGB/2019/8 states that “[d]isagreement on work performance or on other work-related issues is normally not considered prohibited conduct and is not dealt with under the provisions of the present bulletin but in the context of performance management”. The responsible official’s conclusion that it was unlikely that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case (section 5.5...

The Tribunal found that the sanction in this case bore no rational connection or suitable relationship to the evidence on the record and the purpose of progressive or corrective discipline. The Applicant’s messages were mainly reactionary, and he showed great pateince in not responding to the complainant's tone. The Applicant was provoked. The Applicant identified no special circumstances which would warrant the anonymization of this matter, apart from potential personal embarrassment and discomfort, which were not sufficient grounds to grant anonymity.

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of “does not meet performance expectations” and the 2019-2020 “partially meets performance expectations”, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...