Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...

UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted the staff member’s cross-appeal, in part. UNAT found that the UNDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member’s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

The applicant’s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Respondent rested his case on the evidence of a witness on whom anonymity was conferred during the investigation and who was not called at the hearing. From the statements made by the witness during the investigation the Tribunal found that his/her testimony was fraught with irregularities and inconsistencies and could not be acted upon. The Tribunal also found that failure to call the witness for cross examination was a breach of the due process requirement. The Tribunal also held that when anonymity is conferred on a witness during the investigation, the Tribunal is not bound by this and...

Outcome: Applicant awarded: (1) six months’ net base salary in effect at the time of the selection process mentioned herein, as non-pecuniary compensation for the substantial and unwarranted irregularities in the selection process; and (2) three months’ net base pay in effect at the time of the selection process for the stress experienced by the Applicant that was causally related to the Applicant’s loss of chance/loss of opportunity.

The initial fact-finding investigation was fundamentally flawed, unreliable and a sham. The failure to conduct a proper investigation but to resort to arm-chair analysis and conclusions based on the unreliable initial fact-finding investigation was not only useless but constituted a violation of the provisions of ST/Al/371 and the Applicant's due process rights. The Preliminary Investigation Report is characterized by a lack of direct evidence from the alleged victims and a heavy reliance on second hand evidence made by third party witnesses. The IGO/Investigation Unit failed to establish...

The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...

The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...