Disciplinary matters / misconduct

UNAT found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the contested decision not to initiate an investigation due to the resignation of her SRO was lawful as part of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Though the term “preliminary assessment” in ST/SGB/2019/8 was not specifically used in the contested decision, it was clear that Ms. Fosse’s complaint was preliminarily assessed before the decision was made that no investigation would be undertaken. While the previous Bulletin (ST/SGB/2008/5) may have been in force when she lodged her complaint and when it was the subject of a preliminary...

Ms. Specker appealed. The UNAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate. The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The UNAT noted that Ms. Specker’s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases. The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the UNDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. UNAT found that the UNDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the UNDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the UNDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT’s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation “which he heard from another person who attended court” and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 “does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member”. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant’s official status file and UNICEF’s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s former appointment.

The sensitive nature of the sexual harassment allegations and the fact that the victim may be easily identified by the factual circumstances surrounding the case constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity.

The Complainant’s account of facts in relation to the relevant incidents is credible and reliable. The Applicant failed to adduce any evidence that could have undermined the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence. There is no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the Complainant.

The Administration succeeded in discharging its burden of proof to show that...

On anonymization Article 11.6 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides in its relevant part that its judgments shall be published while protecting personal data. A similar provision is contained in art. 26.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Given that the present case relies on medical evidence to support a claim for moral harm, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to redact the Applicant’s name from this judgment. On the merits Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded the following. First, the Tribunal found that the two charges against the Applicant were established as per...

Procedural issue: anonymity In the present case, the sensitive information regarding the Applicant’s medical history and his mental health status constitutes exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity. Therefore, the Applicant’s name is anonymized in the present judgment. Scope of judicial review It is within the Tribunal’s competence to hold a hearing or look at facts that were allegedly not before the decision-maker to determine whether relevant factors have been ignored. This is fundamentally different from a de novo investigation into the facts underlying the disciplinary...

The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant’s...

In all the circumstances, the Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the basis for the finding of misconduct that led to the Applicant’s dismissal. There was no clear and convincing evidence of any factual basis for a finding that the Applicant committed the actions as alleged. The Tribunal found that due process was observed. However, the failure to interview appropriate witnesses adversely detracted from the standard of proof of misconduct achieved by the Respondent. That standard did not reach the level of a clear and convincing case. Of the remedies sought by the...