¹ú²úAV

The Applicant contended that the Complainant’s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim’s own perception of the Applicant’s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant’s conduct was prohibited by UNICEF rules and regulations and amounted to serious misconduct; the ad hoc Joint Disciplinary Committee process was reasonable and that it was under no obligation to take steps, such as holding hearings or interviewing witnesses, if it reasonably considered that such steps were not necessary. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant failed to provide any evidence of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety regarding the Executive Director’s decision to separate the Applicant; and that separation without notice was proportionate to a finding of serious misconduct on the grounds of sexual harassment according to UNICEF’s practice, particularly with regard to staff rule 101.2(d), which is a prohibition on harassment. Outcome: The Applicant’s claim was rejected in its entirety.