Home

UNRWA is committed to enforcing the prohibition of corporal punishment, including through investigating allegations of corporal punishment and to enforcing relevant staff rules and regulations where such allegations are proven. 1.3 Principles informing the Education Department’s Policy on school discipline … b. (...) THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1006 7 of 9 Definition of corporal punishment […] h. Corporal punishment is defined as any punishment involving the application of physical force or the issuance of orders or instructions to a student with the intention of causing physical pain, discomfort, or humiliation. […] i. (...) Section 4. 4.1 Corporal punishment as misconduct … b. Corporal punishment constitutes misconduct as provided for in UNRWA rules and regulations.

On 28 December 2016, the CAO/ZAO reported further allegations of corporal punishment committed by the Appellant against another student at Zarqa School. 8. (...) Articles 1.3 and 4.1 of ETI clearly prohibit corporal punishment as misconduct that is subject to severe disciplinary measures including termination. 59. By committing corporal punishment, the Appellant engaged in misconduct and violated these Regulations and Rules.

It was alleged that he had inflicted corporal punishment on a disabled student. On 27 August 2020, the UNRWA DT issued a Judgment dismissing the application. (...) In this ETI, the term "corporal punishment" includes other cruel or degrading forms of punishment referred to in this definition. (...) Article 4.1(b) of ETI No. 1/08 states: Corporal punishment constitutes misconduct as provided for in UNRWA rules and regulations.

… On 24 June 2014 and 8 July 2014, the SP submitted complaints against the Applicant alleging that she had engaged in corporal punishment. … The Chief[,] Field Education Programme (“CFEP”) dismissed the SP’s allegations that the Applicant had engaged in corporal punishment. (...) The UNRWA Dispute Tribunal noted that the SP’s allegations of corporal punishment against Ms. Beidas were made in June and THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL Judgment No. 2016-UNAT-685 5 of 10 July 2014, prior to the decision to transfer Ms. (...) Beidas due to a failed working relationship with the SP and not on the basis of the corporal punishment allegations, which he had dismissed as unsubstantiated.

In regard to my approach to corporate governance, to which Mr. S[c]hook had agreed in September, he said, “I don’t buy any of this bullshit … Politicians everywhere control these things.” (...) Working with others over the period December 2006/January 2007, it appeared that the Settlement Agreement would contain language requiring good corporate governance by “relevant Kosovo authorities (...) … At the same time as my outspokenness in favor of international principles of good corporate governance was going unheeded, it was clear that my personal situation was precarious.

On 22 September 2014 the Applicant filed his Application challenging the decision of the ABCC through the UNDT corporate email account of the Nairobi Registry. (...) The Tribunal recalls that the Application was filed in the UNDT corporate email account of the Nairobi Registry on 22 September 2014. (...) In the instant case, the filing of the Application by email to the UNDT Nairobi corporate account was not properly recorded by the Registry; the email was not placed on the file, nor was the Respondent informed when the Application was served on him. 32.

… On 1 December 2012, the Applicant was reassigned to the position of Management Advisor, Business Solutions in the Bureau of Management (BoM, now Bureau for Management Services (BMS)) at the P5 level, step 4 to head a corporate project (POPP [unknown abbreviation] Project) on behalf of the Bureau of Management Services. (...) TG], then-Associate Administrator emailed the Deputy Directors of the Bureaus to advise them of the 2018 Budget Steering Committee’s weekly schedule. This corporate planning process was included in the Terms of Reference for the Applicant’s post. (...) EZ’s new role and submits that in consequence, the Applicant was deprived of her tasks in the areas of (a) “Strategy and Policy Development, Corporate Management Oversight”, (b) “BMS Services to Corporate Clients”, and (c) “BMS Directorate Partnership Functions”.