������ҹ������

UNDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, UNDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...

Outcome: The applicant is not entitled to have the note removed simply because no disciplinary proceedings were undertaken in respect of the investigation report. However, the note in its present form is inaccurate and must be removed. Its replacement, if any, must be accurate and first shown to the applicant, who must be given a copy of the investigation report to enable him to place such comment on the file as he wishes, providing it is reasonably connected to the investigation.

Demotion: A demotion is not a purely financial disciplinary measure, unlike a fine or loss of steps. It also carries a stigma and a loss of responsibilities. Discretion of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters: Due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General’s choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure. Establishment of charges: If the disciplinary measure is justified with respect to the established facts in relation to a certain charge, it is not necessary to determine whether additional charges are also established. Violation of due process rights and compensation: Not...

UNDT held that the Applicant’s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before UNDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. UNDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. UNDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

UNDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...

The established facts considered in their entirety amount to misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can manifest itself in different forms, its determination is fact specific, and its occurrence is not limited to work places during work hours. The Applicant’s conduct amounts to sexual harassment in violation of staff rule 1.2(f). A plain reading of the Applicant’s Facebook messages shows their sexual nature. Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant was put on notice that his sexual advances were unwelcome by Ms. X’s text message in July 2012 requesting that he...

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of “supervisor “ as per the UNON Security and Safety Service (UNON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the UNON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide “security...

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

The Applicant consistently, throughout the proceedings, admitted the fact that sometime between December 2006 and January 2007, he had stated in his job application that he had no relative working for a public international organization, even though he was aware that at the time his brother was working for the United Nations. As such, the fact that the Applicant failed to disclose relevant information when he should have, is essentially not in dispute. Whereas the Applicant insists to calls his deed an “oversight”, it is impossible to accept. By invoking the same justifications for not...

UNDT found that on the date of the issuance of the disciplinary measure, as well as on the date when it was received by the Applicant, she remained subject to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which allow for the imposition of disciplinary measures. UNDT held that the facts of the case demonstrate that the Applicant’s actions were undertaken in a conflict of interest in violation of staff regulation 1.2(m). The actions also demonstrate lack of integrity in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b), which requires staff members to “[…] uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and...