The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant’s official status file and UNICEF’s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s former appointment.
The sensitive nature of the sexual harassment allegations and the fact that the victim may be easily identified by the factual circumstances surrounding the case constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity.
The Complainant’s account of facts in relation to the relevant incidents is credible and reliable. The Applicant failed to adduce any evidence that could have undermined the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence. There is no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the Complainant.
The Administration succeeded in discharging its burden of proof to show that...
On anonymization Article 11.6 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides in its relevant part that its judgments shall be published while protecting personal data. A similar provision is contained in art. 26.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Given that the present case relies on medical evidence to support a claim for moral harm, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to redact the Applicant’s name from this judgment. On the merits Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded the following. First, the Tribunal found that the two charges against the Applicant were established as per...
Procedural issue: anonymity In the present case, the sensitive information regarding the Applicant’s medical history and his mental health status constitutes exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity. Therefore, the Applicant’s name is anonymized in the present judgment. Scope of judicial review It is within the Tribunal’s competence to hold a hearing or look at facts that were allegedly not before the decision-maker to determine whether relevant factors have been ignored. This is fundamentally different from a de novo investigation into the facts underlying the disciplinary...
The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant’s...
In all the circumstances, the Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the basis for the finding of misconduct that led to the Applicant’s dismissal. There was no clear and convincing evidence of any factual basis for a finding that the Applicant committed the actions as alleged. The Tribunal found that due process was observed. However, the failure to interview appropriate witnesses adversely detracted from the standard of proof of misconduct achieved by the Respondent. That standard did not reach the level of a clear and convincing case. Of the remedies sought by the...
The Tribunal found that there was ample justification for the decision maker’s plausible conclusion that the Applicant breached his obligation to disclose an actual, or possible, conflict of interest. Although only evidence on a balance of probabilities was required, the evidence presented surpassed that standard and was clear and convincing.
The fact or possibility of such personal interest could impact negatively on the perception of integrity, independence and impartiality required of the Applicant as an international civil servant. The Applicant had a duty was to disclose the actual or...
On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s complaints about lack of due process were without merit. The Applicant did not establish that the Respondent failed to afford him due process in the investigation and disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal recalled that the Applicant was sanctioned for: (i) Misleading the UNHCR’s Global Fleet Management (“GFM”) regarding the extent of the damage to the UNHCR’s vehicle;...
There is no evidence of collusion or bias against the Applicant. On the contrary, several congruent testimonies corroborated the complainants’ statements and confirmed the allegations of bullying and harassment against the Applicant. The Applicant failed to substantiate his arguments against the complaint and the complainants. The facts are established by a preponderance of evidence and constitute misconduct.
Bearing in mind the nature of the facts attributed to the Applicant, it is not unreasonable that he be obliged to attend mandatory training to improve his managerial and communication’s...
The Tribunal recalled its observations in Fultang UNDT/2022/102 filed by this Applicant. The measure is provided in the interest of the Organization; and was fully justified by the need to preserve evidence and to avoid the risk of repetition or continuation of further acts similar to those the Applicant was accused of.
