The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant鈥檚 evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...
UNS-DPPA
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Disciplinary measure or sanction
Facts (establishment of) / evidence
Fraud, misrepresentation and false certification
Sexual exploitation and abuse
Due process
Audio-recordings
Corroboration/hearsay
Admissibility of evidence
Judicial review (general)
Standard of proof
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Evidence
Procedure (first instance and UNAT)
Standard of review (judicial)
Disciplinary measure or sanction
Harassment (non-sexual)
Proportionality of sanction
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
The UNAT upheld the UNDT鈥檚 conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The UNAT rejected appellant鈥檚 contention that because the UNDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct. Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant...