AV

UNDT/2016/177

UNDT/2016/177, Bertrand

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The sanction was based on a finding that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct when he left a hand-held radio and an MP5 9 mm submachine gun with two magazines and approximately 60 rounds of ammunition UNATtended in a UN vehicle that he had been operating, resulting in these items being stolen when an unknown person or persons broke into that vehicle while the Applicant waited several minutes in a restaurant for a take-out meal. The UNDT Tribunal found that the imposed sanction was not manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. It was within the range of what was reasonably available to the Secretary-General. The application was rejected.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

On 12 May 2016, the Applicant, a former Security Officer, Security Operations Unit, United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (“MINUSTAH”), filed an application contesting the imposition of a disciplinary sanction consisting of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity, under staff rule 10.2(a)(viii).

Legal Principle(s)

Judicial review of proportionality: The Tribunal will give due deference to the Secretary-General unless the decision is manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. Should the Dispute Tribunal establish that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate, it may order imposition of a lesser measure. However, it is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to second-guess the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary-General among the various reasonable courses of action open to him. Nor is it the role of the Tribunal to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Bertrand
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law