UNDT/2022/023, Tokhi
The Tribunal held that staff members’ obligations under staff regulations 1.2(a), (b) and (f) are not limited to the work environment but also apply in a certain way to their private lives. The Applicant’s actions constituted physical conduct of a sexual nature that might reasonably be excepted or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to the complainant. There was no doubt that the Applicant’s conduct was unwelcome. The Tribunal found no grounds to review the level of the sanction imposed on the Applicant.
The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s finding of misconduct (for violation of staff regulation 1.2(a), staff rule 1.2(f), (and the provisions of UNICEF’s policies in the matter) and the consequent decision to separate him from service pursuant to staff rule 10.2(a)(xix)
The general standard of judicial review in disciplinary cases requires the Dispute Tribunal to ascertain: (a) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (b) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (c) whether the disciplinary measure applied was proportionate to the offence; and (d) whether the accused staff member was awarded due process in the disciplinary proceedings (see, for example, Abu Hamda 2010-UNAT-022, Haniya 2010-UNAT-024, Portillo Moya 2015-UNAT-523, Wishah 2015-UNAT-537). The fact that the recordings have been taken without consent does not lower their evidentiary value (see Asghar 2020-UNAT-982 para. 51); the evidence was clear and did not need any forensic examination.