51ÁÔÆæ

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

The Applicant contested the imposition of disciplinary and non-disciplinary measures following the completion of a disciplinary process thus, she was not required to request management evaluation as per staff rule 11.2(b). In accordance with art. 8.1(d)(ii), her application should have been submitted directly to the UNDT within 90 calendar days of her receipt of the administrative decision. The Applicant received the sanction letter/contested decision on 1 April 2022, which meant that she had to file her UNDT application on or before 30 June 2022 to be within the prescribed time limits. She...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the UNDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.

The UNAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information. The UNAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in acts affecting two staff members, namely V01 and V02. The Tribunal thus held that the facts on which the sanction was based were clearly established.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards V01 and V02 was (i) unwelcome, (ii) of a sexual nature, and (iii) they might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation. Further, his conduct interfered with their work and/or created for them an intimidating, hostile...

In this case, the facts were established and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed fraud on purpose.

The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounted to a breach of his basic obligations under staff regulations 1.2(b) and (g), staff rule 1.2(i), and the Strategic Framework for the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the Applicant acted with knowledge and intent to mislead (and even with a possible personal economic interest).

Given the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the sanction is not absurd, unreasonable, or...

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna for reimbursement were not authentic. Despite the foregoing, the Applicant certified to Cigna that the information he was submitting was ¡°correct and true¡± and was therefore, acknowledging that he was aware of the contents of the medical claim and attesting to its authenticity.

The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. Excluding the fake invoice and the fake medical report, no other...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. for having, on 21 May 2020, while in a United Nations vehicle clearly visible from a public street in Tel Aviv, Israel, held a female individual closely to his body while she was seated on his lap facing him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner; these events were captured in an 18-second video-clip, which was widely disseminated, bringing the Organization into disrepute (count one);

b. for failure to cooperate with the OIOS investigations by refusing to provide OIOS with the contact details of a material witness...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna were not authentic. The Tribunal held that this was enough to substantiate the accusation that the Applicant used false documents to receive improper and undue economic benefits from Cigna. The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in misconduct through his submission of a fraudulent...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant physically assaulted another staff member and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant¡¯s misconduct. Importantly, the Appellant did not establish a degree of provocation that mitigated her retaliation which was also excessive and beyond the bounds of any permissible defense in the altercation.

The findings of the UNDT that the...