����AV

The UNAT held that the Administration provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the factors required to be considered in the disciplinary context.  This included : the past practice of the Organization in comparable matters, the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was accidental, careless, reckless, or deliberate; whether the staff member followed procedures and was self-aware of the conduct; whether, given the staff member’s experience, the misconduct was minor, substantive, or severe; the risk of damage to the Organization and staff; as well as any mitigating factors.

The...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. UNAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, UNAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

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...

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 did not find any evidence of sexual exploitation and abuse as defined by the SGB. The Tribunal considered the definition of pornography and on viewing the images concluded that they were obscene, hardcore pornography. In view of the Applicant’s admissions and the quantity of materials on his official computer, the misconduct charge in that respect was well founded. The Applicant’s submission that the evidence was fruit of the poison tree and therefore inadmissible was rejected on the basis that the illegally obtained evidence (a CD) merely triggered the investigation but did not...

Demotion: A demotion is not a purely financial disciplinary measure, unlike a fine or loss of steps. It also carries a stigma and a loss of responsibilities. Discretion of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters: Due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General’s choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure. Establishment of charges: If the disciplinary measure is justified with respect to the established facts in relation to a certain charge, it is not necessary to determine whether additional charges are also established. Violation of due process rights and compensation: Not...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant’s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant’s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS’ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...

The Applicant is “not contest[ing] the proportionality of the sanction(s) imposed”. Consequently, the Tribunal need only consider if not reporting another staff member’s violation ST/SGB/2004/15 was correctly considered by the Respondent as being the Applicant’s misconduct, whether his due process rights were respected and whether all the mitigating circumstances were taken into account. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant requested, and was denied, either access to counsel or further opportunities to defend himself during the investigation conducted by OIOS. With...