����AV

The undisputed facts are unambiguous and leave little room for different interpretations. An apology does not invalidate or undo the misconduct. The fact that the Applicant was not made aware of the negative impact of her practice has no relevance for the factual determination. As such, the Administration has established the facts underlying the disciplinary measure in question by preponderance of evidence.

The Applicant using expletives towards her subordinates and widely addressing her colleagues by nicknames in the workplace were compounded by her ignoring personal and professional...

The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the Applicant commented adversely on V01’s clothing during his visit to the National Committee. However, while acknowledging that the comments may have been out of line given that he had no supervisory role over the staff in the National Committee, the Tribunal does not find that evidence supports that this conduct had a sexual component. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant compared V01’s age to his son while stating that he tried to avoid speaking to older women. The Tribunal is also satisfied...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the allegation that UNDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. UNAT found that UNDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process.Outcome: Application rejected on receivability

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? Regardless of the standard of proof applied, the facts of the case as recounted are undisputed. They were first established during the investigation process and confirmed during the hearing by the Applicant and the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the Tribunal heard testimony from the investigator and the security officer who recorded the complainant’s report. The Tribunal did not find any evidence of ill-motivation on the part of the witnesses, and was satisfied that the facts related to the allegations...

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s argument related to the alleged lack of mens rea. It recalls that this is an administrative proceeding and not a criminal case. In the context of administrative/disciplinary proceedings, only the objective facts are essential to determine if misconduct has occurred. The “underlying intentions” of the subject can only be taken into account as mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In the case at hand, the cumulative application of two sanctions of a financial nature (loss of five steps in grade and a fine of three months net base salary) is an excessive...

Regardless of his appeal of the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity, the Applicant’s failure to honour his private legal obligations under Swiss law violated staff rule 1.2(b) and ST/AI/2010/12 and thus the established facts amount to misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the disciplinary measure imposed in this case was proportionate to the established misconduct. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected.

The Tribunal found that there was a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant created a hostile work environment and that she unlawfully interfered with recruitment process for P-2 TJO. The Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant’s actions, as established by the facts, were abuse of the Applicant’s authority as Director at the D-2 level and constitute misconduct under the above-mentioned legal framework. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Administration’s finding that the Applicant...