UNDT/2022/035

UNDT/2022/035, Mancinelli

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had an obligation as a staff member to uphold the highest standards of integrity which include acting with honesty. In her submissions, she argued that she acted truthfully and with honesty. She gave reasons why she thought she could use Organization’s assets for personal benefit. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s justifications were not supported by any rule or regulation. She acted dishonestly in breach of integrity standards by using the Organization’s UPS facility for personal benefit without any lawful justification. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's due process rights were respected and that the Applicant did not prove the allegation of bad faith. The reason she was separated was clear to her and to the Tribunal that she had violated her terms and conditions of contract.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the imposition of a disciplinary measure of separation from service for misconduct with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity imposed on her in accordance with staff regulation 10.1(a) and staff rules 10.1(a) and 10.2(a)(viii).

Legal Principle(s)

In disciplinary cases, the Tribunal is called upon to examine the following: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts amount to misconduct; (iii) whether the staff member’s due process rights were respected; and (iv), whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The application was allowed in part.

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

Mancinelli

Entity

UNFPA

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2020/22

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi