Â鶹APP

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.

In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ¡®sexual molestation¡¯, constitute ¡®serious misconduct¡¯ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.

Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.

The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager¡¯s thorough assessment of the Applicant¡¯s professional experience.

The Applicant¡¯s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.

Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.

Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, ¡°OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action¡±.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (¡°OIAI¡±) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, UNICEF¡¯s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant¡¯s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.

The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.

With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The Applicant failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the selection process for the Post was tainted by any unlawful actions or that he suffered any harm as a result of the contested decision. Accordingly, his application was dismissed and his claim for compensation was rejected.

The assertion that the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that his candidacy would receive special consideration since he had performed the functions of the Post for five years was misplaced. He did not seriously dispute the fact that the creation of the Head of Office position was not a...