Ãå±±½ûµØ

Concerning the corrective measures: To the extent that the fact-finding panel’s investigation resulted in a finding of actions on the part of the Applicant that called for corrective measures in the form of training and counselling, the Respondent’s actions were procedurally proper. The cautionary corrective measure of providing training and counselling for the Applicant was appropriately taken in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5 in circumstances where, although there was no misconduct, the Applicant’s manner of performing his duties caused a staff member to feel harassed. Concerning the decision...

The act of cheating in which the Applicant engaged did not necessitate the use of her UNDP email address. Therefore, the use of the UNDP email address is a distinct and separate from assisting AA in cheating. Considering that the Applicant was a senior staff member, that she had a personal interest in the outcome of the tests in that the person she assisted was her partner, and that the assistance that she provided was significant as she provided AA with full written answers to the test questions, which he then almost completely copied and submitted, the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the Applicant’s admission and testimonies of other witnesses during the investigation and at the hearing, it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant physically assaulted another staff member on 20 March 2016. On whether the facts amounted to misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s action violated staff rule 1.2(g) and constituted workplace harassment, which is prohibited by staff rule 1.2(f). Accordingly, the Applicant’s action amounted to misconduct. With regard to whether the sanction was proportionate to the...

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

In making the final decision on the Applicants’ complaint, the then Director General, UNOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

UNDT held that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. UNDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. UNDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...

UNDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator’s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. UNDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. UNDT...

UNDT held that the Applicant had no authority to demand a performance guarantee from an NGO Coordinator and that the Applicant’s intention was not to keep a performance guarantee, but rather to obtain a bribe from the NGO Coordinator. UNDT held that it was not convinced of the probative value of the alleged handwritten note which the Applicant claimed was evidence of his intention to request a performance guarantee. On the issue of the Applicant returning the alleged performance guarantee, UNDT held that the real intention of the Applicant and the Senior Programme Assistant was to avoid the...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...