CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN HLADÍK CYIL 14 (2023) them adversely. Their contracts provide for some form of the settlement of employment related disputes. 34 The ratione temporis competence of the Board relates to the period of employment of the staff member concerned during which the cause of action arose. In conformity with paragraph 2 on the Membership of the Board , the Appeals Board is composed of the following five members, having equal votes: a Chairperson appointed by the Executive Board, two members appointed by the Director-General and two members representing the staff. The Board is assisted by a Secretary. This paragraph also provides for a possibility of appointing an alternate Chairperson, the modalities for the selection of the four members of the Board and the nomination of observers representing the Administration and staff association(s). Finally, Rule 111.2, paragraph (b) of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules provides for the exception from the obligation to exhaust internal recourses by stipulating that “a staff member may, in agreement with the Director-General, waive the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board and appeal directly to the Administrative Tribunal. In such cases the decision impugned shall be considered as final, and the staff member shall be deemed to have exhausted all other means of contesting it.” The complainant was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct related to the unauthorised disposal of obsolete computer equipment belonging to UNESCO (The complainant signed on 24 December 2015, on UNESCO’s behalf, an agreement with the president of an association registered under French law whereby obsolete computer equipment belonging to UNESCO was transferred to the association free of charge, even though it was earmarked to be destroyed by a company that had entered into a long term agreement with UNESCO to that effect. Following the investigation by the IOS, by memorandum of 19 September 2016, the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management sent to the complainant a copy of the IOS report and informed him that, on the basis of this report, the Director-General was charging him with having engaged in misconduct by initiating an unauthorised agreement resulting in the disposal of assets belonging to UNESCO outside the applicable rules and procedures. The Director added that the report showed that the value of the equipment disposed of was equal to or more than 50,000 United States dollars and consequently, that by drafting and signing a non-standard agreement without receiving authorisation from the Contracts Committee and without consulting the Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs, the complainant had been culpably negligent and caused the Organization unnecessary loss, misused the Organization’s property and equipment and misused his position. 34 See UNESCO HR Manual Item 13.7 (Short Term Contracts), part J. Settlement of disputes, paragraphs 49–51; Service Contracts, Administrative Circular AC/HR/86 of 17 November 2022, part J. Settlement of Disputes, paragraphs 138–140; and, UNESCO HR Manual Item 13.10 (Individual consultant and other specialists contracts), part H. Arbitration, paragraphs 95–96. 35 For an extensive and narrative part on factual background, please see the introduction to Judgment 4457. 5. Factual background and legal analysis of ILOAT Judgment 4457 5.1 Factual background 35 The factual background may be summarized as follows:

90