The Application was granted in part.
The Tribunal rescinded the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant, and ordered reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation in lieu, calculated at two (2) year’s net base salary.
In all other respects, the Respondent’s decision is AFFIRMED and the Applicant’s prayers refused.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.
In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ‘sexual molestation’, constitute ‘serious misconduct’ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.
Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...
Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.
Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...
Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization’s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).
The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...
The Tribunal was unpersuaded by the Applicant’s claim that his participation in the Staff Day activities was “essentially private conduct not involving [United Nations] resources” or that this was “essentially a voluntary, social event”. The requirements for integrity, probity, honesty and truthfulness under the staff regulations and staff rules are not merely “generic obligations” but are specifically intended to apply “in all matters affecting [a staff member’s] work and status”. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the established facts in this case amount to misconduct on the part of...
The Applicant having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, bad faith or improper motivation in the Respondent’s taking of the decision not to accept her request to withdraw her resignation, the application had to fail.
Had the Respondent not exercised his discretion to reject the Applicant’s request to withdraw her resignation, he would have been compelled to rescind selection decisions already communicated and accepted by three other staff members. This would have constituted a breach of the employment contracts of the three staff members. This breach would have...
UNAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. UNAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.
UNAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay’s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. UNAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...
As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute and therefore UNAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, UNAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no error in the JAB’s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant’s failure to report to work and holding of...
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against UNRWA Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.
UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The UNRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and UNAT found no reason to differ from them. UNAT shared the UNRWA DT’s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...
The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli’s cross-appeal in part. The UNAT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the UNDT was “pointless” since by the time the case had reached the UNDT, Mr. Rolli’s post had been abolished. The UNAT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision. The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be...
