äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not completed 28 days of uninterrupted qualifying physical presence when he departed on 13 june 2024. His sbsequent absence interrupted the qualifying cycle, and the days could not be credited towards R&R.

The Tribunal held that; the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the established facts amounted to misconduct, the disciplinary sanction was proportionate to the contested decision and that

the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were not violated. The Tribunal upheld the decision to separate the Applicant from service without termination indemnity, denying the the application in its entirety.

1. Receivability :- The Tribunal relied on Ponce-Gonzalez (2021-UNAT-1099) to determine that different recruitment types (RFR, PSJO, TJO) have distinct legal frameworks. The PSJO was posted before the RFR was cancelled, indicating separate processes. Candidate rights must be balanced with recruitment efficiency. Held: The application is receivable.

2. Merits :- The Tribunal reaffirmed the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in recruitment matters. The presumption of regularity was satisfied: only one candidate was screened as qualified, and the Hiring Manager acted to improve gender and...

• The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
• The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal denied the Motion as irreceivable and rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for an extension of time to file his substantive application.

The Tribunal held:

a. The evidence demonstrated that the Applicant was not credible, particularly in his denial of misconduct during the incident in the Complainant¡¯s container.

b. The facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

c. The established facts about the Applicant¡¯s behaviour in the Complainant¡¯s container room that evening amounted to misconduct.

d. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was proportionate.

e. The Applicant's due process rights were not violated during the UNHCR Inspector General¡¯s Office ...