����AV

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established  In determining whether the standard of proof has been met, the Tribunal “is not allowed to investigate facts on which the disciplinary sanction has not been based and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Secretary General”. Thus, it will “only examine whether there is sufficient evidence for the facts on which the disciplinary sanction was based” (see Nadasan 2019-UNAT-918, para. 40). As such, the Tribunal considers to be irrelevant the Applicant’s submission that the facts on which the allegations were based have not been established. Indeed, what matters in this regard is whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established. The evidence on record shows that the Applicant shared without authorization internal information, which she became aware of by virtue of performing her official UNODC functions, with government officials from two Member States and that she did so based on her personal interest and not for official purposes. The evidence on record also shows that the Applicant shared personal criticism about the activities and policy decisions of the UNODC with officials of the Albanian and U.S. Governments. Accordingly, the Administration has established to the requisite standard of proof the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based.   Whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct  First, the Applicant intentionally disclosing the internal information to governmental officials from Albania and the U.S., and sharing her personal criticism do not fall within the scope of “the normal course of [her] duties” under staff regulation 1.2(i). Specifically, with respect to the draft TOR of the Advisor Post, the circumstances of the case appear to show that the Applicant shared it to further her own personal interest. Also, the Applicant’s sharing of the draft TOR could give an advantage in recruitment if it was shared with prospective candidates, thereby potentially tainting the recruitment process. In relation to the World Drug Report, the evidence clearly shows that the Applicant was aware of the meaning and implications of the term “embargo” since she herself had sought permission to share it with the RC and had been specifically required by relevant officials to keep it under embargo until 26 June 2018. Second, contrary to the Applicant’s suggestion, the obligation not to disclose internal information under the Staff Regulations and Rules is not limited to confidential information classified under the ST/SGB/2007/6. Indeed, staff regulation 1.2(i) explicitly refers to “any information known to [the staff members] by reason of their official position that they know or ought to have known has not been made public”. As a seasoned and senior staff member, the Applicant knew or ought to have known what constituted internal information not to be disclosed to parties external to the Organization. Furthermore, it is obvious that documents either in draft form or under embargo that have not been made public could not be disclosed to external parties without authorization. Finally, there is no merit in the Applicant’s submission that there is no basis for a finding that misconduct occurred. Indeed, the Applicant’s conduct is prohibited under staff regulation 1.2(e), (f) and (i), which are provisions of paramount importance aimed at protecting the independence and integrity of the work of the Organization and its officials. Specifically, the Applicant violated staff regulation 1.2(i) by communicating to government officials from two UN Member States information known to her due to her official position that she knew or ought to have known had not been made public. Furthermore, by intentionally disclosing internal information without prior authorization and sharing personal criticism of UNODC’s activities and policy decisions, the Applicant failed to discharge her functions and regulate her conduct with the interest of the Organization only in view pursuant to staff regulation 1.2(e). By her actions, the Applicant  acted in a manner that could reasonably be perceived as adversely reflecting on the integrity, independence and impartiality of her status as a staff member which is in contravention of staff regulation 1.2(f). Accordingly, the established facts legally amount to misconduct.   Whether the disciplinary measure applied was proportionate to the offence Whether the Administration duly considered the totality of the circumstances The Administration duly considered aggravating factors. First, the Applicant’s conduct not only broke her obligation not to disclose internal information she knew was not public, but also criticized the UNODC’s policy decision and activities. This type of misconduct, if allowed, could have a substantial reputational impact on the Organization and may negatively affect its independence and impartiality. Second, despite the serious nature of her misconduct, the Applicant does not recognize that her conduct is inappropriate and refuses to acknowledge any fault on her part. In this respect, the Tribunal notes that the lack of any expression of remorse is often considered as an aggravating factor in disciplinary matters (see, e.g., Jenbere 2019-UNAT-935, para. 36). Moreover, the Applicant engaged in repeated separate acts of misconduct. Finally, the Applicant was obliged to provide to the investigating authority, as requested, her phone that was used for official calls. Her not doing so constitutes failure to cooperate with duly authorized investigations, potentially amounting to another ground for misconduct. As such, the Administration properly considered this factor as an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sanction. With respect to mitigating factors, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the evidence on record shows that in determining the appropriate sanction to impose, UNDP considered as mitigating factor the Applicant’s previously unblemished record of service. UNDP also took into account the fact that in two instances the information forwarded by the Applicant i.e., critical comments against the Organization, had already been shared with representatives of Member States. In light of the above, in determining the appropriate sanction, the Administration duly considered the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct as well as all aggravating and mitigating factors. Accordingly, the Administration’s imposition of the sanction was after giving due consideration to the totality of the circumstances of the case.   Whether the sanction applied is consistent with prior precedent The Applicant’s attempt to draw comparison between the measure imposed on the Representative for South-eastern Europe ("RR") for contributing to an offensive working environment (see Banaj UNDT/2022/043, para. 97) and the sanction imposed on her for misconduct in the present case must fail. Indeed, the Applicant’s misconduct and the RR’s conduct are not similar, and thus not comparable. Similarly, the example of a staff member giving an unauthorized news conference referenced by the Applicant is not relevant to her case because her misconduct is not comparable to that either. Accordingly, the Applicant failed to provide any relevant evidence from UNDP’s or the Secretary-General’s practices to support her claim of inconsistency Moreover, an analysis of the Organization’s past practice on disciplinary matters shows that the sanction applied in the present case is consistent with prior precedent. Accordingly, the disciplinary measure applied was proportionate to the offence.   Whether the Applicant’s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process The Tribunal is satisfied that the key elements of the Applicant’s right to due process were met in the present case. Indeed, the evidence on record shows that the Applicant was fully informed of the charges against her, was given the opportunity to respond to those allegations, and was informed of the right to seek the assistance of counsel in her defence. Moreover, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the disciplinary measure imposed on her is proportionate to the nature and gravity of her misconduct and is consistent with those applied in similar cases. Moreover, the Applicant has failed to substantiate her claim that her right to due process during the investigation and disciplinary proceedings were violated. First, there is no merit in the Applicant’s submission that the Respondent’s actions amount to a constructive dismissal. The demotion of the Applicant to the NO-B level was the result of her misconduct and not an arbitrary decision of the Organization to deprive her of her functions with the intent to constructively dismiss her. Second, while the temporary reassignment of certain of her functions during the investigation process was an unlawful exercise of administrative power (see Banaj 2022-UNAT-1202, para. 1), the Applicant fails to show how this irregularity negatively impacted the investigation and/or the disciplinary process. This alleged procedural irregularity is of no consequence given the kind and amount of evidence proving the Applicant’s misconduct. Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to substantiate her claim that her right to due process during the investigation and disciplinary proceedings were violated.   Whether the Applicant is entitled to any remedies Other than making general allegations, the Applicant has not provided any evidence supporting that she suffered harm.