UNDT/2023/110

UNDT/2023/110, O'Brien

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his UNDP-issued laptop to access websites that contained pornography and other sexually explicit material and advertised escort services, has been established by clear and convincing evidence based on the investigations forensic report of his computer, the Applicant's partial admittance and several contradictions.There is also clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in three instances of unauthorised outside activities by being the Director and major shareholder of a company, and engaging in other business ventures in conjunction with said company and others. By engaging in unauthorised outside activities, especially in a field of work that overlaps with the Applicant's position in UNDP, the Applicant's conduct also gave rise to potential conflict of interest.Each of the Applicant's actions constitutes misconduct.The disciplinary measure is proportionate to the offence and in line with established jurisprudence and past Tribunal practice.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity.

Legal Principle(s)

When termination is a possible outcome, misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence requires more than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.
The role of the Dispute Tribunal is to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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

O'Brien

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

UNDT/GVA/2022/021

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Geneva