�鶹��ý

The UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the UNDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The UNDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the UNDT’s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The UNDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant’s circumstances and has no intention of jeopardizing his health in any way. At the same time, it considers the Applicant’s active participation in the proceedings essential to ensuring the fair adjudication of his case. The Tribunal concurs with the Respondent’s assertion that “the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is contingent upon the individual exercising this right having a legitimate interest in initiating and sustaining legal action.” The Applicant voluntarily initiated these judicial proceedings and, as such, has a vested interest...

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The entitlement under new staff rule 6.3 on parental leave is only effective as of 1 January 2023, and its application is subject to the “conditions established by the Secretary-General” as per staff rule 6.3(a). These conditions are set out in ST/AI/2023/2.

Section 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2 provides that said administrative instruction governs the administration of parental leave in respect of a child born or adopted on or...

Applicant’s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-UNAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the“harm this case has caused” him and the “sensitive information” referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant’s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...

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...

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...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant, as a senior manager, was conferred a duty of care to promote a “harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct” as per ST/SGB/2008/5, which she failed to do. The Applicant’s actions, as established by the facts, constituted harassment and abuse of authority under ST/SGB/2008/5 and amounted to misconduct.

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...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/030.

UNAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj’s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) […] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

The UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was problematic because the UNDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The UNAT observed that the UNDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the UNDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The UNAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...