51ÁÔÆæ

• The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
• The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal held:

a. The evidence demonstrated that the Applicant was not credible, particularly in his denial of misconduct during the incident in the Complainant¡¯s container.

b. The facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

c. The established facts about the Applicant¡¯s behaviour in the Complainant¡¯s container room that evening amounted to misconduct.

d. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was proportionate.

e. The Applicant's due process rights were not violated during the UNHCR Inspector General¡¯s Office ...

The UNAT found that the UNDT relied very significantly on its assessment of the former staff member¡¯s credibility in giving his oral evidence before it, disbelieving him strongly and almost entirely.However, it held that this was not balanced against any similar assessment of the complainants¡¯ credibility, particularly where their accounts of the facts conflicted with those of the former staff member. The UNAT emphasized that there was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either the former staff member¡¯s counsel or the UNDT Judge, which was particularly significant given...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.In this regard, the UNAT observed that UNICEF Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT Judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore, contrary to the former staff member¡¯s contention, not in proximity to the Judge.It further found that the fact that the Judge did not keep her camera on at all times during the hearing did not demonstrate that she was not appropriately...

At the outset, the UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the UNRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on UNRWA staff...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in finding that Ms. Johnson-Simmons¡¯s claim to compensation for unpaid taxes not receivable, as not only did Ms. Johnson-Simmons fail to identify the contested administrative decision regarding reimbursement for income tax payments, but she also admitted that she did not submit the matter for management evaluation, and there was no indication that she had paid any taxes.

The UNAT found that Ms. Johnson-Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed relevant information about her changed residency status from the Organization, and she also willfully...

The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration¡¯s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to ¡°analyze the facts¡± and ¡°ask...