�鶹��ý

The UNAT concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that two periods of delay in addressing the former staff member’s complaints was not evidence of bias against her. The UNAT held that delay alone is not indicative of bias.

The UNAT further held that the former staff member’s claims related to a certain press release had been decided by prior Tribunal judgments and could not be relitigated.

The UNAT also found that the UNDT correctly confirmed that the establishment of the fact-finding Panel, its process of fact-finding and reporting, and its interactions with the former staff member...

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred in finding that it had been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the staff member had engaged in harassment and abuse of authority, used her office for personal reasons to prejudice the position of a colleague, disclosed sensitive information, failed to report the possible misconduct of others, used a personal e-mail address contrary to the applicable provisions, and exchanged inappropriate messages about colleagues.

The UNAT found that regardless of whether she had been a whistleblower engaged in a protected activity, there was no evidence...

The UNAT found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hunt, in coordination with colleagues, was covertly communicating with a news media reporter on the Investment Fund transaction, the approval process, and the former Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG)’s role and had thereby leaked information to the reporter.

The UNAT held that Mr. Hunt failed to prove that his action of reporting possible misconduct within UNJSPF to outside sources was a protected activity under the Secretary-General’s Bulletin on protection against retaliation. The UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s...

The UNAT found that Article 9(4) of the UNDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the UNDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The UNAT found that...

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member’s request for an oral hearing as the case record was “comprehensive” and there was “no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.”

The UNAT held that the staff member’s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

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 UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The UNRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the UNDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness’s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member’s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he...

The UNAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The UNAT held that the Dispute...

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...