Â鶹APP

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 Â鶹APP, 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...

The final decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration¡¯s own action or by the Tribunal¡¯s judgment, should the Applicant¡¯s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment as it merely...

Considering that the sanctioning decision relied heavily on the finding that the Applicant had had five times over the limit established by the SOP from 2012, the interpretation of the reading of the breathalyser remained an issue. In this respect, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence was clear and convincing. The Respondent rejected an explanation offered by the Military Police officer in charge of administering blood tests that the breathalyzer had recalculated the contents of alcohol found in the exhaled breath (BrAC) to relative alcohol contents in blood (BAC) and displayed the...

The Tribunal held that there was no breach of the applicable procedures in the selection process. The Administration acted in accordance with the UNIFIL guidelines for the selection of staff members. The Applicant was clearly given a full and fair consideration as demonstrated by the fact that she advanced through the process until the final stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the complaint about the long period it took for the Applicant to be paid and the dispute over the amount of the pension paid to him were beyond the scope of the application since they were not subjected to management evaluation as required by art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). The Tribunal found that the Administration had proper legal grounds for refusing to issue the separation notification to the UNJSPF in accordance with staff rule 3.18(c)(ii), ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members) and ST/AI/155/Rev.2 as...

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant¡¯s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within UNIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

Once he was notified that he would not be separated from the Organization, the Aplicant was not entitled to a repatriation grant for his dependents. By allowing his family to travel back to his country of origin regardless, he incurred the liability of an overpayment of the repatriation grant to which he was not entitled. The Organization was entitled to recover the overpayment from the Applicant.

A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with UNFIL involving the Â鶹APP Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...

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 Applicant was separated from service for submitting false information in three claims for dental treatment to the Medical Insurance Plan provider, Cigna, for reimbursement. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because during the investigation he was properly informed of the subject and purpose of the interview and afforded sufficient notice. He also had no objections as to the conduct of the interview when asked at the end of his interview. With respect to the claim that the Applicant insisted was, in fact, genuine, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation had not been...