The Tribunal recalled its observations in Fultang UNDT/2022/102 filed by this Applicant. The measure is provided in the interest of the Organization; and was fully justified by the need to preserve evidence and to avoid the risk of repetition or continuation of further acts similar to those the Applicant was accused of.
The fact that the Applicant accepted a lower level post did not make his application moot. The Administration failed to fulfil its obligation to offer available positions at the same level of the abolished post. The Applicant sustained and continues to sustain a relevant loss of salary because the Administration failed to make good faith efforts to place him in one of the positions that he applied to at the P-5 level, positions for which he was duly qualified. The Administration also failed to meet its obligation to reassign the Applicant as a matter or priority to another post matching his...
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 Tribunal found that the Applicant’s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Many questions were deleted after the test, a grading methodology was developed after the test and even the passing grade was determined after the test. If indeed there was a legitimate need to make a correction, which there was no proof that there was, the permitted action that the Administration could have taken as per Chhikara 2020-UNAT-1014 was either: (a) administer a new written test to all candidates; or (b) implement variations to the assessment methodology that would not have prejudiced any...
The Applicant was notified of the decision in writing by email dated 17 June 2022. Accordingly, he was required to file his application by 15 September 2022. However, the Applicant filed it on 18 September 2022. The application was therefore not filed within the deadlines stipulated by the Tribunal's Statute. Further, the Applicant did not request a waiver of the deadline before filing his late application or in the late application itself. The application was found to not be receivable.
It was crucial for the Tribunal to examine the relationship between the Applicant and the alleged victim of his behaviour. There was clear evidence of constant financial support to the complainant/victim. The Applicant built a relationship of trust with the complainant/victimthe where she was able to rely on him for support and was comfortable to meet with him outside of the UNFPA Malawi Country Office. The victim was placed in a very vulnerable position. The abuse by the Applicant was not an isolated episode, as the Applicant is accused also for sexual assault and harassment in different...
The Tribunal found that the use of the investigation report was not subject to the confidentiality agreement between the parties; it was an autonomous document, which was lawfully used in court. The decision did not constitute a disciplinary measure. It was taken pending the completion of the disciplinary process and was without prejudice to the Applicant’s rights. More than one circumstance warranting the placement of the staff member on ALWP occurred. The Applicant could be dismissed or separated from service with the 麻豆APP for breach of the duty of trust and confidence, in...
The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.
The Applicant’s post termination correspondence seeking to clarify what his terminal benefits would be, his eventual receipt of a statement of payments on 20 September 2021 and the filing of a new MER on 27 October 2021 reiterating the points previously made and decided on by the MEU did not re-set the time for the filing of the application. The Applicant waited approximately seven months after receiving the June 2021 MEU response, which addressed his submissions about entitlement to termination indemnity, before filing the application. The application was therefore outside the permitted 90...
Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.
