Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the UNDT’s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the UNDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara’s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the UNDT’s findings into doubt.  Accordingly, the UNAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The UNAT also held that the sanction of...

UNDT erred in deciding that Mr. Adriantseheno had been charged solely with sexual harassment, that his behavior towards Vo1 and Vo2 did not constitute sexual harassment, and that his due process rights were violated.

UNAT found the UNDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, UNAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer’s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

UNAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. UNAT found no error in UNDT’s finding that the measure of...

The Tribunal finds that the decision to summarily dismiss the applicant is not tainted by any irregularity, that the facts are established, that they amount to misconduct and that the sanction of summary dismissal is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. UNDT jurisdiction: The Tribunal has no power to compel a person external to the Organization to appear before it as a witness. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine whether the procedure followed was regular, whether the facts in question are established, whether...

Compensation for stress and anxiety The Applicant produced medical evidence of stress and anxiety. The Tribunal finds that this aspect of the claim is made out. Also, the actions of Mr. Stephen Lieberman, Chief Administrative Officer, described in the Tribunal’s Judgment on liability, were high-handed and grossly disproportionate and the attempt at misleading both the JAB and JDC panels, as well as Counsel for the Respondent and the Tribunal in the present proceedings, constitute aggravating factors which the Tribunal finds heightened the distress experienced by the Applicant. In arriving at a...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s due process rights were observed by the Organization in its handling of the complaint and rejected the application in its entirety. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Organization in handling the complaint, both individually and in aggregate, met the requirements of due process.

The Applicant’s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB’s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...

The Tribunal found that the acts complained of amounted to misconduct under Staff Regulation 1.2 and Staff Rule 301.3(d) as conduct unbecoming of an international civil servant and as sexual harassment in connection with work. A written censure was a lenient sanction in the circumstances. Sexual harassment in connection with work, as prohibited by Staff Rule 301.3(d), includes a situation where outside the workplace a staff member perpetrated an act of sexual harassment upon another staff member.

The Applicant contended that the Complainant’s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim’s own perception of the Applicant’s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant’s conduct was prohibited by UNICEF...