ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT held that UNDT had violated the Appellant’s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT held that UNDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. UNAT held that UNDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. UNAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. UNAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT’s exercise...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. UNAT held that UNDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. UNAT held that UNDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses’ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that UNDT...

As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...

The Applicant consistently admitted that the verbal and physical altercation took place and that he damaged the officer’s umbrella. He only challenged the investigation process which he maintained was biased and unfair since it didn’t consider the context of the interaction. He also complained that the most pertinent aspects of the case which were caught on video were never provided to him and he therefore didn’t speak to them in the context of the investigation. Since the Applicant did not deny that he was involved in a verbal and physical altercation with a Kenyan police officer and that he...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the Applicant’s admission and testimonies of other witnesses during the investigation and at the hearing, it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant physically assaulted another staff member on 20 March 2016. On whether the facts amounted to misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s action violated staff rule 1.2(g) and constituted workplace harassment, which is prohibited by staff rule 1.2(f). Accordingly, the Applicant’s action amounted to misconduct. With regard to whether the sanction was proportionate to the...