Judgment

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 found suitable for available positions. Indeed, for one job opening, he was one of the eight candidates short-listed and convoked to interview. By shortlisting him, the Administration tacitly acknowledged that he was deemed suitable for the position; per Timothy UNDT/2017/080, as a continuing appointment holder facing termination, the Administration was obliged from that point to consider his candidacy on a preferred, non-competitive basis.

The Tribunal found that the Administration failed in its obligation to make good faith efforts to absorb the Applicant into a new post...

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 ASG/OHR considered all the relevant facts, and weighed the reasons provided by the Director of the RSCE. She considered the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s prior service on a temporary appointment, and the exception previously granted to the Applicant’s sister.

The Respondent created no legitimate expectation that the exception previously granted to the Applicant’s sister would automatically result in the Applicant being later granted an exception, too; indeed, the derogation in the past had a different factual basis in the type and length of the relationship (and the temporary...

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.

The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA’s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant’s testimony is not reliable.

With reference to the Tribunal’s...

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a “staff member”. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.