��ż���

The Applicant’s request for RC to prepare questions for the ACABQ members to ask the USG/OSAA about the issues that the Senior Managers had been contesting in the office was a breach of staff regulation 1.2(i) which provides that “[s]taff members shall exercise the utmost discretion with regard to all matters of official business. They shall not communicate to any Government, entity, person or any other source any information known to them by reason of their official position that they know or ought to have known has not been made public, except as appropriate in the normal course of their duties or by authorization of the Secretary-General”. This shows that the Applicant led the Senior Managers in their attempt to escalate their issues to the ACABQ and link them to the budgetary review process which could have negatively impacted the office. The Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s conduct exhibited a serious lapse of professional judgment, integrity and competence and breached the Organization’s trust placed in him as a senior manager. The Applicant essentially used the means available to him as a Director at the D-2 level to obstruct or overturn the USG/OSAA’s decisions and in the process potentially damaging the reputation of the office.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s overall conduct, which was established by clear and convincing evidence, not only violated multiple staff regulations and rules cited above but also exhibited a serious lapse of integrity and competence and breached the Organization’s trust in him as a senior manager on the following grounds.

First, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s demands of personal loyalty and implying retribution for disloyalty violate the provisions of staff regulation 1.2(b) which provides that staff members shall uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. The Applicant’s threats of retribution for disloyalty violated staff rule 1.2(g) which provides that staff members shall not threaten, retaliate or attempt to retaliate against staff members exercising their rights and duties. The Applicant’s conduct amounted to harassment and abuse of authority in the workplace in violation of staff rule 1.2(f) which provides that “[a]ny form of discrimination or harassment, including sexual or gender harassment, as well as abuse in any form at the workplace or in connection with work, is prohibited”.

Second, the Tribunal found that it constituted misconduct when the Applicant persistently refused to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS of OSAA staff and to engage with KJ in order to assume administrative responsibilities as her SRO.

Third, the Tribunal found the Applicant’s refusal to be involved in the later phase of OSAA’s 2020 budget planning and preparation process to constitute misconduct. The Applicant failed to discharge his functions as a senior official of OSAA tasked with working on the budget process in breach of staff regulation 1.2(e) and his persistent refusal to follow the USG/OSAA’s requests that he work on the budget process constituted insubordination in breach of staff rule 1.2(a), which stipulates that “[s]taff members shall follow the directions and instructions properly issued by the Secretary-General and by their supervisors”.

Fourth, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s involvement in building opposition to the instructions, directives, and authority of USG/OSAA constitutes misconduct in breach of staff rule 1.2(a) and staff regulation 1.2(b). The Applicant’s conduct was aimed at frustrating the USG/OSAA’s reforms and thwarting her leadership at OSAA.

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed upon the Applicant was proportionate as the Applicant engaged in a pattern of actions, as set out above, which amounted to misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a failure to uphold the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant, but it also displayed a disregard for the rules of the Organization. The Applicant’s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by the Organization. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considerd that it was within the Organization’s administrative discretion to decide to end its employment relationship with the Applicant.