����AV

This case revealed overt sexual harassment where both words and physical touching were used and attempted to extract sexual favour, but even though no such favour was extracted, the harassment caused harm to the victim who was put in fear of loss of her position in the Organization and caused unnecessary tension in the staff relations between the persons involved.

In this case both words and acts were used together during a short period of persistence. When this happens in a work setting it can cause serious emotional stress and hurt. Based on the evidence this is what occurred in this case.

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal held that, based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed. The Tribunal found the testimony of the victim to be credible and established that the Applicant had indeed sexually harassed the victim. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and which did constitute serious misconduct...

Under “Preliminary Issues”, the Tribunal decided to strike from the record the Applicant’s motion for anonymity and to exceptionally accept the Applicant’s closing submission which exceeded the page limit.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by evidence and up to the required standard of proof.

The Tribunal noted that the sanction was based on four allegations, which it considered separately. After having considered the evidence on record for each allegation, the Tribunal found that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that...

The decision to have the Applicant consent to an Independent Medical Evaluation ("IME") was reasonably taken in the interest of the Organization.

The Tribunal held that there was no unlawful behavior by UNHCR in following and implementing the recommendations arising from the IME. The decision was rational, procedurally correct and appropriate.

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis. 

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...

The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days’ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.

The UNAT held that the UNDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration’s conclusion that the staff member’s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board’s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the UNAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management’s prior informal evaluation of the staff member’s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline. 

A lack of cooperation is not always a relevant circumstance in every case to be taken as aggravating factor. Sometimes, if the lack of cooperation is not serious, it may not be taken as an aggravating circumstance. However, the nature of the case may affect how lack of cooperation during an investigation is viewed. Being dishonest and misleading during the investigation may be considered serious and be taken as a ground of aggravation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a lack of cooperation can never be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

While the Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly...

Receivability
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant’s request for management evaluation and found that only the decision not to consider him eligible for a temporary appointment through the Talent Pool, at the P-2 level, was receivable and subject to judicial review. Any other decision to which the Applicant referred in his submissions was consequently not receivable.

Merits
The Tribunal referred to the applicable legal framework as well as to the evidence on record and noted that the practice is to only consider experience at the G-6 level and above (or equivalent experience outside of the UN...