����AV

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s rights to defence had been breached during the disciplinary procedure because the investigation report and all its attachments had not been shared with him. It concluded however that such a procedural flaw did not affect the established facts, since the Applicant had admitted to them, and did not warrant the rescission of the contested decision, since the established facts amounted to misconduct. The Tribunal nevertheless rescinded the summary dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate to the established facts. It ordered: (i) the reinstatement...

The Tribunal finds no flaws in the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. It further finds, based on its assessment of the intern’s credibility and on the evidence available, that the facts have been established. It also concludes that they qualify as misconduct, even though the Respondent erroneously relied on ST/SGB/2008/5; the latter was indeed issued on 11 February 2008 and was therefore not applicable at the time of the misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal, recalling the Secretary-General’s discretion in disciplinary matters and considering the circumstances of the case, finds...

The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...

Judicial review in disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, where the facts are established and undisputed, the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts in question constitute misconduct and whether the sanction imposed is proportionate to the misconduct. In this regard, the Tribunal may not intervene in the exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretionary authority, except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness.

The UNDT found that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was wrongful. Assault: A charge of assault is a criminal charge and it was not within UNICEF competence to investigate a criminal offence or a tort alleged to have been committed. Identification of staff members: The Tribunal took judicial notice of the fact that when an international staff member finds him or herself facing an imminent threat of physical harm or is placed in some other peculiar position especially in a foreign country, it is reasonable to identify oneself as a UN Staff Member. Sexual harassment: It is unusual...

Attempted theft: In the instant case, the Applicant’s counsel cites the 23 June 2011 Judgment and argued that “it follows that whereas the offence of an attempt to commit an act that could amount, if completed, to misconduct is not envisaged as a sanctionable offence within the prevailing legislative framework of the United Nations, the dismissal of the Applicant must be held to have been ultra vires.” This interpretation and application of the Tribunal’s reasoning in the said judgment to this case and the Applicant’s circumstances is misconceived and misleading. This is because the offence of...

The Tribunal noted that the delegation of authority in disciplinary matters from the SG to the USG for Management in July 2009 had not been published and as such lacked a substantial requirement for taking legal effect. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the USG for Management could not further delegate this power to another person, since any kind of “sub-delegation” should have been provided for in the initial delegation of authority by the SG to the USG for Management, which was not the case. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was taken by the OIC, USG for Management. The Tribunal found...

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’s rights were respected in compliance with ST/AI/371. The Applicant failed to establish any irregularities in the procedure followed to impose the disciplinary measure on him. It was clear from the investigation that there were several irregularities in the supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. These irregularities were sufficiently disturbing to strongly suggest that the said invoices were falsified. The facts on the basis of which the Applicant was sanctioned were established. The Applicant’s actions constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of the...

Disciplinary investigations: are not criminal in nature and the evidential standards that apply to criminal investigations do not apply. The decision maker cannot exclude the evidence obtained by an unlawful interview from consideration but the weight of the evidence obtained in unfair or unlawful circumstances should be treated with the utmost caution.