Home

This is what transpired: I said let me also share my experience and I shared her my experience and I said "Nothing will happen. Everything is safe" and then I said… and that's what I... that's when I shared my experience. Yeah. We have to take question, we have to... (...) When she told I was surprised, I was shocked and he does this to all of... all the people, all the participants. I said let me share… let me also share because she was very scared because she is from Asian country by... she came from Asia.

[reference to footnote and annex omitted] These posts include photos taken from the Trial Bundle, as it was displayed on the computer of Applicant’s counsel and shared with the hearing participants during cross-examination. (...) The Tribunal further notes that the initials of these two people were also stated in Order No. 153 (NY/2020) dated 8 October 2020. 4. In order to protect the privacy of those people whose first names are disclosed on Inner City Press’ Tweeter account, the Tribunal will remove all previous orders from the Dispute Tribunal’s website, noting that the judicial record is already only accessible to the parties pursuant to the Dispute Tribunal’s Practice Direction No. 6 on records.

The Respondent further submits that the Deputy Director of the UNOPS People and Change Group notified the Applicant of the contested decision verbally on 12 January 2018. (...) It results from the file that, on 12 January 2018, the Deputy Director of the UNOPS People and Change Group, in a telephone call, informed unequivocally the Applicant of the contested decision. 23. (...) In Jean, the Appeals Tribunal found that the purpose and content of the verbal communication was not clear and was only supported by the unsigned and undated meeting minutes, which had not been previously shared with the applicant, and otherwise was not corroborated by any other evidence.

When the Applicant sent the WhatsApp messages, she was being transparent and, aware that the information could be shared since the request was already made during the telecom with Mr. (...) This fortifies her claim that there could have been a request from ITSS for people already employed and there was always an understanding even on the Administration’s side that people already working could be continued with the new vendor. (...) In addition, there was a delay of approximately three months before the statement was finally shared with the Applicant and her comments sought. 20.

This process is particularly concerning given that two of the direct witnesses, Mr. E.M. and Mr. K.R., share the same office and were thus in a position to coordinate their account of events. (...) [A.E.], who certified the documents, had an equal share of responsibility”. Case No. UNDT/GVA/2018/011 Judgment No. (...) During the interview, the investigator told the Applicant that “there are three people who said that [he] threatened to kill (…) at least six people whose names are [A.E.], [M.Y.], [L.M.] and [S.S.]”.

SL at a coffee shop in New York City in June 2017, Mr. SL shared a bit about his complaint without providing all the details. (...) JB had several conversations and Mr. SL shared more details about his complaint. Mr. SL shared that the Applicant asked him if he watched pornography and if he masturbated. (...) JB stated that Mr. SL also shared that in Montreal around December 2016, Mr.

UNRWA DT erred in its procedure and breached due process rights as it did not share with Appellants the Respondent’s communications with UNRWA DT as mentioned in paragraphs 17-19 of the impugned Judgment. 14. (...) We will only say that it is axiomatic that all significant communications between the Tribunal and a party should always be shared with other parties as a matter of natural justice and procedural fairness. 21. (...) It seems that there are some people who have objection. They started collecting signatures in this regard.

On 19 July 2017, the IGO shared the interview transcript with the Applicant and gave him the opportunity to review it. (...) On 28 August 2017, the IGO shared the draft investigation findings with the Applicant and invited him to comment, which he did on 5 September 2017. (...) The interview was recorded, and its verbatim transcript was shared with the Applicant for his comments and signature.

So, absolutely people were touching each other’s, but not intentionally”. (...) Although he did not see any touching and like RdN thought that dancing was respectful and people kept a socially acceptable distance. But he contradicted the Applicant who had claimed that during the dancing some people were taking off their t-shirts. (...) K from whom the Applicant claimed to have received such information denied sharing any such information with the Applicant. 59.

At the time that the Applicant first came to the JCO on secondment, she was the only IM Specialist in the Amman office and she was shared between different UNICEF departments or sectors. (...) While she was at the JCO, she shared all the IM Specialist work for the Education and WASH sectors and other more general work with another stand-by partner. (...) She said that he told others falsely that she did not get on with people and that she argued with many people. 117.