Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2024/016, Applicant

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator’s finding of “prior conduct†were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant’s persistency with the idea of sharing an accommodation on Airbnb, and the contemporaneous indirect testimonial evidence on record, which confirms V01’s perception of pressure at the time of the incident, the Tribunal considers the allegation to be established to the standard of clear and convincing evidence.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant harassed V01 by creating an intimidating and hostile work environment, it is established to the standard of clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant changed his workplace behavior towards V01 after the mission to South Korea, and after she rejected him. He started putting significant pressure on her, monitoring her work and whereabouts closely, and was unpredictable and erratic in his behavior towards her.
In the Tribunal’s view, it is established that the manner in which the Applicant managed his professional relationship with V01 was so problematic to the point of outside third parties noticing a change in his behaviour during a specific time.
The foregoing leaves no doubt about the nature of the Applicant’s intentions and supports V01’s allegations with respect to what happened months prior in South Korea. That is, the subsequent workplace harassment is consistent with V01’s allegations that she suffered sexual harassment from the Applicant, thus befitting a finding of misconduct also in this respect.
Given the gravity of the misconduct, the Tribunal views the sanction as proportionate to the misconduct, and agrees that remaining in service would be irreconcilable with the core values professed by the United Nations.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and with 25 per cent of the 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.
in imposing a disciplinary sanction, decision makers enjoy a wide discretionary area of judgment. Due deference should be given to the discretion of the decision maker. 
In conducting a judicial review, the Dispute Tribunal “shall consider the record assembled by the Secretary-General and may admit other evidence†to assess: whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by evidence; whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; whether the Applicant’s due process rights were observed; and whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offence.
It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary-General amongst the various courses of action open to him, nor it is the role of the Tribunal to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.
 

Outcome
Appeal 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.