51�Թ�

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.

Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.

Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, “OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action”.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (“OIAI”) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, UNICEF’s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant’s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

Merits

The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The UNAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the UNDT.

In any event, the UNAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

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...