51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant¡¯s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant¡¯s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had admitted his wrongdoing during his interview by the investigator. Accordingly, the Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed fraud, a prohibited conduct.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud. Therefore, his actions amounted to serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s argument that his due process rights were violated because...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by UNICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for UNICEF to end...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an UNRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 51ÁÔÆæ the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The UNAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier UNDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The UNAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier UNDT judgment.

The UNAT was satisfied that when the UNDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the UNDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The UNAT held that the Administration provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the factors required to be considered in the disciplinary context. This included : the past practice of the Organization in comparable matters, the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was accidental, careless, reckless, or deliberate; whether the staff member followed procedures and was self-aware of the conduct; whether, given the staff member¡¯s experience, the misconduct was minor, substantive, or severe; the risk of damage to the Organization and staff; as well as any mitigating factors.

The...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal held that, based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed. The Tribunal found the testimony of the victim to be credible and established that the Applicant had indeed sexually harassed the victim. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and which did constitute serious misconduct...

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator¡¯s finding of ¡°prior conduct¡± were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant¡¯s persistency...