Ãå±±½ûµØ

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 gravity of the offence, the Tribunal recalled that it is a consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that physical aggression is not to be tolerated among the United Nations personnel, no matter the degree of provocation on the part of the victim or personal circumstances of the attacker. The Tribunal therefore, found that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant who assaulted another staff member was not disproportionate. The Tribunal also found that the Administration had properly identified the mitigating circumstances in the case. On the prong of due process rights, the Tribunal recalled that the key elements of due process rights are met when the subject was fully informed of the charges against him, the identity of the accusers and their testimony, as such he was able to mount a defence and to call into question the veracity of their statements. In the present case, the Tribunal found that it was not contested that the Applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the allegations against him; nor was it contested that the Applicant was informed of his right to seek assistance of an attorney. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed during their entire disciplinary process.