UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The UNAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.
The UNAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute allow the UNRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order specific performance and award compensation for harm. The UNAT thus found that the UNRWA DT committed an error in law and exceeded its jurisdiction, when it remanded the case “to the Agency to take a new administrative decision consistent with this Judgmentâ€.
The UNAT observed that no expert evidence is necessary to find that referring to a work colleague as a female bear or a (chubby) ducky is offensive, and it can be inferred that such comment was offensive to the Complainant. Mr. Slayyeh’s conduct qualified as misconduct and the UNRWA DT erred in failing to make that determination.
However, the UNAT found that Mr. Slayyeh’s conduct should not be considered “serious misconduct†and the Agency’s imposition of a written censure and a fine equivalent to two weeks’ salary was within the range of disciplinary measures and not disproportionate.
The UNAT acknowledged that there were various delays in Mr. Slayyeh’s case, but these procedural irregularities were not substantial so as to vitiate the contested decision.
The UNAT held that there was no deliberate abusive behaviour on the part of Mr. Slayyeh and therefore he should not be penalized with an award of costs for his appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
UNRWA DT staff member contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of written censure and a fine equivalent to two weeks’ salary for engaging in workplace harassment.
In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2024/025, UNRWA DT rescinded the decision and remanded the case to the Agency to take a new administrative decision. The UNRWA DT found that the staff member had used inappropriate language towards the complainant on one occasion in 2017, and that he described her as “dubbeh†(female bear) on another, but the Dispute Tribunal could not determine whether this was misconduct.
The staff member appealed on the grounds that he should have been granted compensation. The Commissioner-General cross-appealed, arguing that the contested decision was lawful.
Legal Principle(s)
Harassment is any improper and unwelcome conduct that might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another person. Harassment may take the form of words, gestures or actions which tend to annoy, alarm, abuse, demean, intimidate, belittle, humiliate or embarrass another or which create an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Tribunals will only interfere and rescind or modify a sanction imposed by the Administration where the sanction imposed is blatantly illegal, arbitrary, adopted beyond the limits stated by the respective norms, excessive, abusive, discriminatory or absurd in its severity.
A remand to the Administration may only be ordered by the Dispute Tribunal with the concurrence of the Commissioner-General, and prior to the determination of the merits of the case.
An award of costs is rarely made, and usually after the party has been fairly warned of that consequence and the party’s abuse of process continues.