�鶹��ý

The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01’s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01’s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01’s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

The sensitive nature of the sexual harassment allegations and the fact that the victim may be easily identified by the factual circumstances surrounding the case constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity.

The Complainant’s account of facts in relation to the relevant incidents is credible and reliable. The Applicant failed to adduce any evidence that could have undermined the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence. There is no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the Complainant.

The Administration succeeded in discharging its burden of proof to show that...

The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA’s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant’s testimony is not reliable.

With reference to the Tribunal’s...

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established according to the applicable standard? It was alleged that during the Cox’s Bazar all-staff retreat in February 2020, the Applicant: a. Grabbed V01 from behind her and held her tight with his hands around her waist to the front of her body. He rested his head on her back while he pulled her back so that the front of his body rested against the back of her body. V01 did not consent to him touching her; and b. Hugged V02 from the front side of her body with his body pressed against her body. He hugged her with both his...

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...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. UNAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an “unwelcome sexual advance”, it is required that the behavior in question “might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, […] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment” and that “[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident”. UNAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos’ conduct as...

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 UNDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. UNAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-UN staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the UNDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. UNAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified UN staff members, to whom the...

The staff member’s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the UNDT conclusion that the staff member’s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56): “… By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant’s personal dignity but also adversely...

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...