Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

Regulation 1.2(f)

  • 13.1(b)(i)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Annex IV
  • Appendix D
  • Provisional Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 1
  • Regulation 1.1
  • Regulation 1.1(a)
  • Regulation 1.1(b)
  • Regulation 1.1(d)
  • Regulation 1.1(e)
  • Regulation 1.1(f)
  • Regulation 1.2
  • Regulation 1.2(a)
  • Regulation 1.2(b)
  • Regulation 1.2(c)
  • Regulation 1.2(e)
  • Regulation 1.2(f)
  • Regulation 1.2(g)
  • Regulation 1.2(h)
  • Regulation 1.2(i)
  • Regulation 1.2(l)
  • Regulation 1.2(m)
  • Regulation 1.2(o)
  • Regulation 1.2(p)
  • Regulation 1.2(q)
  • Regulation 1.2(r)
  • Regulation 1.2(t)
  • Regulation 1.3
  • Regulation 1.3(a)
  • Regulation 10.1
  • Regulation 10.1(a)
  • Regulation 10.1(b)
  • Regulation 10.1a)
  • Regulation 10.2
  • Regulation 11.1
  • Regulation 11.1(a)
  • Regulation 11.2
  • Regulation 11.2(a)
  • Regulation 11.2(b)
  • Regulation 11.4
  • Regulation 12.1
  • Regulation 2.1
  • Regulation 3
  • Regulation 3.1
  • Regulation 3.2
  • Regulation 3.2(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)(i)
  • Regulation 3.5
  • Regulation 4.1
  • Regulation 4.13
  • Regulation 4.13(c)
  • Regulation 4.14(b)
  • Regulation 4.2
  • Regulation 4.3
  • Regulation 4.4
  • Regulation 4.5
  • Regulation 4.5(b)
  • Regulation 4.5(c)
  • Regulation 4.5(d)
  • Regulation 4.7(c)
  • Regulation 5.2
  • Regulation 5.3
  • Regulation 6.1
  • Regulation 6.2
  • Regulation 8
  • Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 8.2
  • Regulation 9.1
  • Regulation 9.1(a)
  • Regulation 9.1(b)
  • Regulation 9.2
  • Regulation 9.3
  • Regulation 9.3(a)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(i)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(ii)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(v)
  • Regulation 9.3(b)
  • Regulation 9.3(c)
  • Regulation 9.4
  • Regulation 9.5
  • Regulation 9.6
  • Regulation 9.6(b)
  • Regulation 9.6(c)
  • Regulation 9.6(e)
  • Regulation 9.7
  • Regulation IV
  • Regulation X
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 54

    At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

    The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

    The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that ST/SGB/2003/13 imposes a requirement of “undue advantage” for sexual exploitation to occur.  The UNAT further found that the former staff member abused the position of vulnerability of V01 for sexual purposes (i.e., engaging in at least four acts of sexual intercourse), which constitutes sexual exploitation and abuse.  The UNAT emphasized that the UNDT itself acknowledged that V01, allegedly a minor, was vulnerable and less powerful than the former staff member, and that his actions had a sexual connotation.  Therefore, the UNAT held that the...

    The Tribunal was unpersuaded by the Applicant’s claim that his participation in the Staff Day activities was “essentially private conduct not involving [United Nations] resources” or that this was “essentially a voluntary, social event”. The requirements for integrity, probity, honesty and truthfulness under the staff regulations and staff rules are not merely “generic obligations” but are specifically intended to apply “in all matters affecting [a staff member’s] work and status”. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the established facts in this case amount to misconduct on the part of...

    After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent’s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

    The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

    The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

    The evidence is clear that the Respondent’s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

    The UNAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the UNDT’s decision to grant Mr. Nair’s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision.  The UNAT noted the confusion presented by UNDT’s finding that “no misconduct occurred at all”, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had “repeatedly reacted and used hostile language” which justified, in the UNDT’s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The UNAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...

    The undisputed facts are unambiguous and leave little room for different interpretations. An apology does not invalidate or undo the misconduct. The fact that the Applicant was not made aware of the negative impact of her practice has no relevance for the factual determination. As such, the Administration has established the facts underlying the disciplinary measure in question by preponderance of evidence.

    The Applicant using expletives towards her subordinates and widely addressing her colleagues by nicknames in the workplace were compounded by her ignoring personal and professional...

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the UNDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.  

    The UNAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information.  The UNAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that because of a combination of the staff member’s failure to recall the events in question and of the UNDT’s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the UNDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

    The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had correctly determined the staff member’s acts were sexual in nature.  The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat.  The UNAT held that the...

    The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01’s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01’s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01’s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

    However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

    With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the UNDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel “influenced” by them. 

    The UNAT also denied the Secretary-General’s...