�山����

UNAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal was receivable. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the fact that Mr Bagot and the alleged victim had a friendly relationship, that he invited her to his apartment after lunch, that she accepted the invitation and they drank several cocktails and finally engaged in a personal conversation and that there was physical contact to which the alleged victim did not object at the beginning and which he immediately ceased when asked to do so. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that Mr Bagot’s behaviour surrounding the lunch, aside from not being work-related, could not reasonably be considered unwelcome. Considering the events which followed, UNAT held that an analysis of the totality of circumstances did not reveal in a clear and unambiguous way that Mr Bagot had constructive knowledge of the unwelcome nature of his actions. UNAT held that the facts did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of misconduct. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law and fact by not deciding in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence and the applicable burden of proof. UNAT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bagot’s conduct as established constituted sexual harassment. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law and fact in determining that Mr Bagot’s conduct constituted sexual harassment. UNAT held that the conditions for harassment and abuse of authority were not satisfied. UNAT allowed the appeal in part. UNAT reversed the UNRWA DT judgment to the extent that it found that the termination of Mr Bagot’s appointment was lawful. UNAT ordered Mr Bagot’s reinstatement, or compensation in lieu of rescission of the separation dismissed the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal and ordered a copy of the judgment to be placed in Mr Bagot’s personnel file within two weeks of the issuance of the judgment.