2013-UNAT-302 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2013-UNAT-302, Applicant

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the weight of the evidence, in that case, justified the decision taken by UNICEF. UNAT held, while acknowledging the importance of confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, that due process did not always require that a staff member defending himself against disciplinary action for summary dismissal had the right to confront and cross-examine his/her accusers. Under certain circumstances, denial of this right did not necessarily fatally flaw the entire process, so long as it was established to UNAT’s satisfaction that the accused was afforded fair and legitimate opportunities to defend his/her position. In the instant case, UNAT was satisfied that the key elements of the staff member’s rights of due process were met: he was fully informed of the charges against him and the identity of his accusers and their testimony. UNAT held that the staff member was able to mount a defence and to call into question the veracity of their statements. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNDT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him based on allegations of sexual harassment. UNDT concluded that the sanction of summary dismissal was based on unsubstantiated charges and that the Applicant’s due process rights were violated when he could not cross-examine the complainants, who did not appear at the hearing before UNDT.

Legal Principle(s)

Due process does not always require that a staff member defending himself against disciplinary action for summary dismissal has the right to confront and cross-examine his/her accusers.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Applicant

Entity

UNICEF

Case Number(s)

2012-334

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York