����AV

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY’s conduct, the UNDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS.  The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the UNDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The UNDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence.  The fact that the three witnesses...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself. 

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator’s finding of “prior conduct” were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant’s...

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant’s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

The UNAT noted that several months after the Secretary-General had been notified of the Judgment, the only action taken was that some responses had been elicited from four staff members alleged in the complaint to have engaged in misconduct and that “these responses alongside the 22 pages and 18 annexes” to the complaint were under review.

Noting the justification of the Secretary-General for the inaction that in the instant matter, no specific time had been set for execution, the UNAT held that the Administration had not acted as promptly as per the obligations imposed on it, "within a...

The UNAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the UNDT’s decision to grant Mr. Nair’s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision.  The UNAT noted the confusion presented by UNDT’s finding that “no misconduct occurred at all”, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had “repeatedly reacted and used hostile language” which justified, in the UNDT’s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The UNAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant.  As such, the UNAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The Respondent failed to secure the attendance of two victims at the remanded hearing. Four witnesses testified before the Tribunal, including only one victim. None of their testimonies corroborates the charges as laid. On the contrary, they are exculpatory in so far as all three witnesses testify that they did not see the Applicant doing anything improper at the event in question. Accordingly, there is no effective response to the concerns that formed the basis for the Appeals Tribunals’ decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Neither the allegations memorandum nor the sanction...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...