2012-UNAT-209, Applicant
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (UNDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (UNDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/UNAT/114), UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant’s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. UNAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of authority to do so. UNAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate, given the gravity of the offences. UNAT granted the Secretary-General's appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment on the merits, rendering moot the appeals against the judgment on compensation.
The Applicant challenged his summary dismissal for misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. UNDT found that the summary dismissal was unlawful because it breached the rules and procedures for disciplinary investigations as well as the general requirements of due process.
There are no legal grounds that can justify an award of compensation when no actual prejudice is found. In reviewing a disciplinary case, UNAT has to examine the following: (1) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (2) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct under the Regulations and Rules; and (3) whether the disciplinary measure applied is proportionate to the offence.