51ÁÔÆæ

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...

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...

Preliminary matter: the use of prior conduct evidence The Applicant argues that his due process rights were violated during the investigation, particularly by the irregular use of prior conduct evidence which allegedly created a bias against him and masked the lack of clear and convincing evidence in relation to the sexual harassment complaint. The Tribunal considers it is proper and not unlawful for the Organization to consider the staff member¡¯s background and behaviour towards others in the context of a disciplinary case, as long as it is relevant, uncontroversial and probative. UNAT...

A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01¡¯s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant¡¯s handling of V01¡¯s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

Although not constitutive...

The essential question for determination on appeal is whether the UNDT correctly held that the alleged misconduct of creating a hostile work environment and giving of gifts was proved in accordance with the standard of clear and convincing evidence. In other words, did the evidence establish the alleged misconduct to a high degree of probability? At its essence, therefore, this case involves strongly contested disputes of fact about whether AAC conducted himself in a manner that was abusive and created a hostile working environment. The Administration says he did. AAC strongly denies it. Thus...

UNAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. UNAT held that to the extent UNDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. UNAT allowed the appeal in part. UNAT vacated the UNDT Judgment by...

The investigation successfully established that the Applicant engaged in workplace harassment in seven different occasions against the three complainants. By committing workplace harassment, the Applicant breached the highest standards of integrity and engaged in behaviour unbecoming of an international civil servant. As such, her conduct constitutes serious misconduct. However, the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant was found to be too harsh of a penalty lin light of the Administration¡¯s past disciplinary measures on other cases of comparable conduct, as...

Receivability ratione materiae. The Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was not clear on whether he was making allegations of misconduct against his Supervisor, which would need to be dutifully investigated, or citing performance or management issues to be addressed by management. Similarly, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that the matter of lawfulness of the decision to place him on ALWP was ever formally contested by him. Hence, any determination against the decision not to further investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaints of harassment against his supervisor or against his...

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before UNDT. UNAT also found that UNDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. UNAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the UNHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. UNAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...